Download
1 / 17
180 likes | 645 Views
Definition of brand architecture and classification of different brand architecture strategiesObjectives of the study and sample profileHypotheses resulting from the studyLimitations of the studyDiscussion. Structure of the presentation. Definition of brand architecture.
E N D
1. As a result of mergers and acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, the introduction of new products and services etc., the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems. Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the view of practitioners on different brand architecture strategies. In this study practitioners of 53 mainly internationally operating companies identify their branding strategy, evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future. As a result of mergers and acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, the introduction of new products and services etc., the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems. Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the view of practitioners on different brand architecture strategies. In this study practitioners of 53 mainly internationally operating companies identify their branding strategy, evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future.
2. The presentation is structured as follows:
First I would like to give you a overview of the basic brand architecture strategies, with two examples from our qualitative study, in order to show the complexity of brand architecture decisions in practice.
Secondly we will turn to the objectives of the study an the composition of the sample before I will present the limitations of the study. Finally I will invite you to a lively discussion.
Before I begin with the main topic of my presentation I would like to say a few words, why brand architecture gets more and more important in recent years.
For example in 1934 the Volkswagen Corporation offered only one car brand - the “Beetle”. Now, in 2003 Volkswagen operates world-wide with an expanded brand portfolio, which includes not only the brand Volkswagen with the subbrands New Beetle, Jetta, Golf, Passat, Touareg, Phaeton etc., but also Seat, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, Bugatti and Lamborghini. The rising number of brands is mainly caused by mergers & acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, technological breakthroughs, an increasing heterogeneity of consumer demand and the introduction of new products and services. As a result of this increasing complexity the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1999, Kapferer 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999, Erdem 1998, Morrin 1999, Park et al. (a) 1986 (b) 1989, Sullivan 1990, Schweiger and Schrattenecker 2001). Therefore, many companies are currently streamlining their brand portfolio.The presentation is structured as follows:
First I would like to give you a overview of the basic brand architecture strategies, with two examples from our qualitative study, in order to show the complexity of brand architecture decisions in practice.
Secondly we will turn to the objectives of the study an the composition of the sample before I will present the limitations of the study. Finally I will invite you to a lively discussion.
Before I begin with the main topic of my presentation I would like to say a few words, why brand architecture gets more and more important in recent years.
For example in 1934 the Volkswagen Corporation offered only one car brand - the “Beetle”. Now, in 2003 Volkswagen operates world-wide with an expanded brand portfolio, which includes not only the brand Volkswagen with the subbrands New Beetle, Jetta, Golf, Passat, Touareg, Phaeton etc., but also Seat, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, Bugatti and Lamborghini. The rising number of brands is mainly caused by mergers & acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, technological breakthroughs, an increasing heterogeneity of consumer demand and the introduction of new products and services. As a result of this increasing complexity the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1999, Kapferer 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999, Erdem 1998, Morrin 1999, Park et al. (a) 1986 (b) 1989, Sullivan 1990, Schweiger and Schrattenecker 2001). Therefore, many companies are currently streamlining their brand portfolio.
3. Definition of brand architecture So what do we mean when we talk over brand architecture. Let me begin with a definition of brand architecture:
By Aaker and Joachimstaler we understand brand architecture as…. an organizing structure of the brand portfolio that specifies the brand roles and the relationships among brands (Ford and Taurus) and different product-market brand contexts (Nike Europe vs. Nike U.S.). Brand architecture is defined by the brand portfolio, portfolio roles, product-market context roles and the portfolio structure.
The first term of the definition refers to the existing brand portfolio of a company, i.e. all brands and subbrands offered on different geographical markets to different target groups. By assigning roles to the brands of the portfolio roles it becomes possible to get a systems view of the brand portfolio with strategic brands, poor dogs, „image brand“ and cash cow brands.
Given the different possible levels of brand architecture, a firm has a number of branding options available to it. The company may have one brand for all products offered for different geographical markets and target groups. It‘s also possible to provide individual brands for each market, product category and target group, so that the company offers different independent brands from a customer‘s point of view. A mixture of these two strategies would be a family brand whereby one brand stands for some of the target groups, geographical markets and product categories of the company.
The second part of the definition of Aaker/Joachimstaler deals with the relationships between the brands, not only from the company‘s point of view, but also of the customer‘s point of view.
Following this definition we can say that unlimited combinations of brand architecture strategies are possible, but certain types are typically, as we can see on the next slide, the classification of different brand architecture strategies.
(Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand.
„poor dog“ Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty.
„image brand“ Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand.
Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant – this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.)
Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the practitioners view of different brand architecture strategies. Previous research has identified frequent forms of brand architecture strategy (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999 and Kapferer 1998.) Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) propose a continuum which ranges from the “House of Brands” strategy to the “Branded House” strategy. Keller (1998) differentiates between corporate dominant, mixed brand and brand dominant strategy. Similarly a study of Laforet and Saunders (1999) revealed three major patterns of brand architecture: corporate-dominant, product-dominant and hybrid or mixed structures. In the following, we use the classification of Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) who defined four basic strategies: the house of brands, endorsed brands, subbrands under a master brand and a branded house. A branded house uses a single master brand such as Nike or Sony with the subbrands having no or little importance. A company following a house of brands strategy offers many independent, i.e. from a consumer’s point of view, unconnected brands (e.g. Procter & Gamble, Unilever). An endorsed brand is independent, like the house of brands, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. Subbrands are closer to their master brand than endorsed brands and they often add relevant associations to the master brand.
So what do we mean when we talk over brand architecture. Let me begin with a definition of brand architecture:
By Aaker and Joachimstaler we understand brand architecture as…. an organizing structure of the brand portfolio that specifies the brand roles and the relationships among brands (Ford and Taurus) and different product-market brand contexts (Nike Europe vs. Nike U.S.). Brand architecture is defined by the brand portfolio, portfolio roles, product-market context roles and the portfolio structure.
The first term of the definition refers to the existing brand portfolio of a company, i.e. all brands and subbrands offered on different geographical markets to different target groups. By assigning roles to the brands of the portfolio roles it becomes possible to get a systems view of the brand portfolio with strategic brands, poor dogs, „image brand“ and cash cow brands.
Given the different possible levels of brand architecture, a firm has a number of branding options available to it. The company may have one brand for all products offered for different geographical markets and target groups. It‘s also possible to provide individual brands for each market, product category and target group, so that the company offers different independent brands from a customer‘s point of view. A mixture of these two strategies would be a family brand whereby one brand stands for some of the target groups, geographical markets and product categories of the company.
The second part of the definition of Aaker/Joachimstaler deals with the relationships between the brands, not only from the company‘s point of view, but also of the customer‘s point of view.
Following this definition we can say that unlimited combinations of brand architecture strategies are possible, but certain types are typically, as we can see on the next slide, the classification of different brand architecture strategies.
(Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand.
„poor dog“ Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty.
„image brand“ Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand.
Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant – this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.)
Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the practitioners view of different brand architecture strategies. Previous research has identified frequent forms of brand architecture strategy (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999 and Kapferer 1998.) Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) propose a continuum which ranges from the “House of Brands” strategy to the “Branded House” strategy. Keller (1998) differentiates between corporate dominant, mixed brand and brand dominant strategy. Similarly a study of Laforet and Saunders (1999) revealed three major patterns of brand architecture: corporate-dominant, product-dominant and hybrid or mixed structures. In the following, we use the classification of Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) who defined four basic strategies: the house of brands, endorsed brands, subbrands under a master brand and a branded house. A branded house uses a single master brand such as Nike or Sony with the subbrands having no or little importance. A company following a house of brands strategy offers many independent, i.e. from a consumer’s point of view, unconnected brands (e.g. Procter & Gamble, Unilever). An endorsed brand is independent, like the house of brands, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. Subbrands are closer to their master brand than endorsed brands and they often add relevant associations to the master brand.
4. In this presentation I will use the classification of brand architecture strategies according to Kevin Lane Keller, who distinguishes between 3 basic strategies: the corporate dominant strategy, the mixed brand strategy, and the brand dominant strategy. The mixed brand strategy is split up by Keller in the dual brand strategy and the endorsed brand strategy.
The corporate dominant strategy means that the corporate name is supreme and applied across a range of product lines, and communications tend to reinforce the corporate image e.g. Xerox. One master brand is used with the subbrands having no or little importance.
If a company uses a brand dominant strategy, the decision has been made not to relate brand and corporate names e.g. Marlboro, Phillip Morris. From a customer's point of view the company offers different, unconnected brands like P&G or Unilever
In the case of a mixed brand strategy the individual brand is sometimes dominant and sometimes the corporate name is dominant. In some cases they are used together with equal emphasis. The relative prominence of the brand elements determines the importance of the brands, i.e. that one time the main product positioning and the usp is shown by the primary brand. The secondary brand element is often used to support the primary brand or to add some additional value.
IN the case of the endorsed brand the brands offered by a company are independent, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. The dual brand strategy means that the subbrands are closer linked with their master brand and they often add relevant associations to the master brand. The mixed brand strategies are the most complex forms of brand architecture strategies.
The different kinds of brand architecture strategies involve different advantages and disadvantages, mainly in the case of brand extensions. I mentioned some authors who are engaged in brand architecture strategies and their pros and cons.
In this presentation I will use the classification of brand architecture strategies according to Kevin Lane Keller, who distinguishes between 3 basic strategies: the corporate dominant strategy, the mixed brand strategy, and the brand dominant strategy. The mixed brand strategy is split up by Keller in the dual brand strategy and the endorsed brand strategy.
The corporate dominant strategy means that the corporate name is supreme and applied across a range of product lines, and communications tend to reinforce the corporate image e.g. Xerox. One master brand is used with the subbrands having no or little importance.
If a company uses a brand dominant strategy, the decision has been made not to relate brand and corporate names e.g. Marlboro, Phillip Morris. From a customer's point of view the company offers different, unconnected brands like P&G or Unilever
In the case of a mixed brand strategy the individual brand is sometimes dominant and sometimes the corporate name is dominant. In some cases they are used together with equal emphasis. The relative prominence of the brand elements determines the importance of the brands, i.e. that one time the main product positioning and the usp is shown by the primary brand. The secondary brand element is often used to support the primary brand or to add some additional value.
IN the case of the endorsed brand the brands offered by a company are independent, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. The dual brand strategy means that the subbrands are closer linked with their master brand and they often add relevant associations to the master brand. The mixed brand strategies are the most complex forms of brand architecture strategies.
The different kinds of brand architecture strategies involve different advantages and disadvantages, mainly in the case of brand extensions. I mentioned some authors who are engaged in brand architecture strategies and their pros and cons.
5. Comparison of two competitors - using a totally different brand architecture strategy despite a comparable structure of their store brand and private labels portfolio I will now show an example of two chain store companies operating in the pan-European and international food retailing industry. These are case studies of the sample. Despite the comparable structure of their store and retail brands the companies are using totally different brand architecture strategies. Whereas the German REWE Group showed on the left side of the slide uses a clear brand dominant strategy the Austrian Spar Organisation showed on the right side of the slide has a mixed strategy and simultaneously a corporate dominant brand strategy in the case of the store brands.
The Rewe Group offers unconnected store brands for different target groups in different pricing segments. E.g. Mondo operates in the discount area, billa and emma in the supermarket and merkur in the hypermarket area. Bipa stands for modern drug stores.
In contrast to the REWE-Group the Spar Organisation integrates the corporate brand spar in every store brand; one time like an endorser in the case of spar gourmet, one time as a brand dominant and three times (europar, despar and interspar) a dual brand strategy is used.
On the next level, the retail brand level of the food retailing stores the REWE Group on the left side of the slide shows a continuous brand product strategy, with the retail brands ja!, which stands for a premium segment biological cultivation brand, clever and quality line which cover the low-price segment or chef menü for convenience goods.
The Spar Organisation on the right side of the slide has as well as in the case of the store brands a mixed strategy on the retail brand level. I.e. in the case of food products the corporate brand spar is integrated in the brands one time as an endorser like in the case of „feine Küche“ and „frisch und fertig“ convenience product brands, or the biological cultivation brand „natur pur“ , sometimes as a dual brand like in the case of interspar weinwelt a vine distribution and sometimes the spar organisation, in the case of the non-food sector with sun lotion, pet food or detergence, a brand dominant strategy is used.
Recapitulatory we can say, that the REWe-Group has a clear brand dominant strategy on the store brand level as well as on the retail brand level, whereas the Spar-Organisation has a triple mixed strategy with brand dominant, mixed brand and corporate dominant brand architecture strategies.
The reason for the different brand architecture strategies of these two case studies is caused by historical events, i.e. in the case of the rewe group by mergers and acquisitions and in the spar organization is a trade association whereby the collective wants to see the brand, which they are paying for regarding advertising efforts.
I will now turn to the next point of my presentation, the objectives and results of the qualitative study.
REWE-Countries: Activities in Germany and other European countries (Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Ukraine and Bulgaria.)
The 29 SPAR Countries:1932: Niederlande 1947: Belgien 1953: Deutschland 1954: Dänemark 1954: Österreich 1955: Frankreich 1956: Großbritannien 1959: Spanien 1959: Italien 1962: Finnland 1963: Südafrika 1963: Irland 1966: Zimbabwe 1969: Griechenland 1977: Japan 1982: Argentinien 1984: Norwegen 1989: Schweiz 1990: Schweden 1992: Slowenien 1992: Ungarn 1992: Tschechien 1994: Australien 1995: Polen 1997: Litauen 2000: Russia 2000: Mauritius 2002: Zypern 2002: Ukraine I will now show an example of two chain store companies operating in the pan-European and international food retailing industry. These are case studies of the sample. Despite the comparable structure of their store and retail brands the companies are using totally different brand architecture strategies. Whereas the German REWE Group showed on the left side of the slide uses a clear brand dominant strategy the Austrian Spar Organisation showed on the right side of the slide has a mixed strategy and simultaneously a corporate dominant brand strategy in the case of the store brands.
The Rewe Group offers unconnected store brands for different target groups in different pricing segments. E.g. Mondo operates in the discount area, billa and emma in the supermarket and merkur in the hypermarket area. Bipa stands for modern drug stores.
In contrast to the REWE-Group the Spar Organisation integrates the corporate brand spar in every store brand; one time like an endorser in the case of spar gourmet, one time as a brand dominant and three times (europar, despar and interspar) a dual brand strategy is used.
On the next level, the retail brand level of the food retailing stores the REWE Group on the left side of the slide shows a continuous brand product strategy, with the retail brands ja!, which stands for a premium segment biological cultivation brand, clever and quality line which cover the low-price segment or chef menü for convenience goods.
The Spar Organisation on the right side of the slide has as well as in the case of the store brands a mixed strategy on the retail brand level. I.e. in the case of food products the corporate brand spar is integrated in the brands one time as an endorser like in the case of „feine Küche“ and „frisch und fertig“ convenience product brands, or the biological cultivation brand „natur pur“ , sometimes as a dual brand like in the case of interspar weinwelt a vine distribution and sometimes the spar organisation, in the case of the non-food sector with sun lotion, pet food or detergence, a brand dominant strategy is used.
Recapitulatory we can say, that the REWe-Group has a clear brand dominant strategy on the store brand level as well as on the retail brand level, whereas the Spar-Organisation has a triple mixed strategy with brand dominant, mixed brand and corporate dominant brand architecture strategies.
The reason for the different brand architecture strategies of these two case studies is caused by historical events, i.e. in the case of the rewe group by mergers and acquisitions and in the spar organization is a trade association whereby the collective wants to see the brand, which they are paying for regarding advertising efforts.
I will now turn to the next point of my presentation, the objectives and results of the qualitative study.
REWE-Countries: Activities in Germany and other European countries (Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Ukraine and Bulgaria.)
The 29 SPAR Countries:1932: Niederlande 1947: Belgien 1953: Deutschland 1954: Dänemark1954: Österreich 1955: Frankreich 1956: Großbritannien 1959: Spanien1959: Italien 1962: Finnland 1963: Südafrika 1963: Irland 1966: Zimbabwe1969: Griechenland1977: Japan 1982: Argentinien 1984: Norwegen 1989: Schweiz 1990: Schweden 1992: Slowenien 1992: Ungarn 1992: Tschechien 1994: Australien 1995: Polen 1997: Litauen 2000: Russia 2000: Mauritius 2002: Zypern 2002: Ukraine
6. Objectives of the study
Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of different types of brand architecture strategies by practitioners regarding
- consumer market
capital market
labor market
employees (corporate culture)
Identifying brand roles in the brand portfolio
Finding out key factors influencing the brand architecture strategy
Collection and description of case studies regarding
brand architecture strategies
With this qualitative study we wanted to collect case-studies concerning different brand architecture strategies in order to compare different brand architecture strategies in certain factors. So first of all we wanted to know if the responsible brand managers are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of their own company‘s brand architecture strategy. An additional intension regarding the pros and cons of the brand architecture strategy was to find out, if brand managers do only think in terms of consumer markets or if they also consider other important target markets, like the capital or the labor market or their employees.
In the qualitative study we furthermore included questions concerning the roles of the brands in the company‘s brand portfolio and possible factors influencing the brand architecture strategy of the company now or in future.With this qualitative study we wanted to collect case-studies concerning different brand architecture strategies in order to compare different brand architecture strategies in certain factors. So first of all we wanted to know if the responsible brand managers are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of their own company‘s brand architecture strategy. An additional intension regarding the pros and cons of the brand architecture strategy was to find out, if brand managers do only think in terms of consumer markets or if they also consider other important target markets, like the capital or the labor market or their employees.
In the qualitative study we furthermore included questions concerning the roles of the brands in the company‘s brand portfolio and possible factors influencing the brand architecture strategy of the company now or in future.
7. Objectives regarding the sample Respondents from advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies with regard to their client‘s brand architecture strategy. Let me now turn to the objectives when planning the sample. First of all we wanted to have different industries not only to get general statements but also to compare the different industries. Another aim when electing the companies was to get headquarters as well as subsidiaries to find out who is responsible for strategic brand management.
The most important point was to have different kinds of typical brand architecture strategies to characterize them in terms of advantages and disadvantages.
If possible we tried to get two different respondents within a company in order to compare different perceptions concerning the brand architecture strategy of the company and the last aim when considering the sample was to ask external partner companies, like advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research companies about the brand architecture of their client’s company. We interviewed these external companies on reference of the focal company.
Let me now turn to the objectives when planning the sample. First of all we wanted to have different industries not only to get general statements but also to compare the different industries. Another aim when electing the companies was to get headquarters as well as subsidiaries to find out who is responsible for strategic brand management.
The most important point was to have different kinds of typical brand architecture strategies to characterize them in terms of advantages and disadvantages.
If possible we tried to get two different respondents within a company in order to compare different perceptions concerning the brand architecture strategy of the company and the last aim when considering the sample was to ask external partner companies, like advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research companies about the brand architecture of their client’s company. We interviewed these external companies on reference of the focal company.
8. Sample profile
Cumulative coverage of the Austrian economy as measured by number of employees: about 10% (320.000 of 3.1 mio. employed population in Austria
Method
53 qualitative face-to-face interviews were carried out during February and August 2002. The interviews consisted of mainly open-ended questions and on average took 82,2 minutes. The sample of companies includes 33 mainly internationally operating companies in the areas of fast moving consumer goods (13 companies, e.g. McDonalds, Unilever, Procter&Gamble, Red Bull), durables (8, e.g. Hewlett Packard, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Sony) and the service industry (12, e.g. Allianz, Austrian Airlines, Microsoft, Europay). To compare the perceptions of different respondents of diverse branches, i.e. the headquarter and a subsidiary, four companies were interviewed twice. The respondents operate mainly on the senior management, marketing department and strategic staff unit level, with the majority (65%) being between 31 and 45 years old; 84% of them were male. The respondents were asked to identify their branding strategy evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and to specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future.
In addition to the 33 companies, we asked 16 other persons (working in advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research agencies) with regard to their client’s brand architecture strategy, the focal company always being one of those from which an internal view had been assessed previously. When drawing the sample of companies, we looked for variety in branding strategy, the degree of internationalisation and industry was taken into account. The brand architecture strategies were assessed according to a coding scheme by four individual coders. Discrepancies were solved by discussion. The advantages and disadvantages of the different branding strategies allocated by the respondents were categorised by two independent coders, as well as deciders and external influencers on the brand architecture strategy. The results of the explorative study are to generate hypothesis as the basis for further quantitative research projects.
Die Stichprobe setzte sich aus 37 Markenverantwortliche in Unternehmen zusammen, 9 Verantwortliche in Agenturen und 7 in Beratungs und Marktforschungunternehmen zusammen, die im Zeitraum von Februar bis September 2002 durchschnittlich etwas mehr als 80 Minuten befragt wurden. Die Interviews wurden hauptsächlich in Österreich durchgeführt, wobei je ein Interview in D bzw. Ungarn durchgeführt wurde.
Die Position im Unternehmen der Befragten war hauptsächlich Markenverantwortlicher der Marktingabteilung/-leistung und des Brand Magagements, weiters befanden sich noch 6 Verantwortliche auf Geschäftsführungsebene in der Stichprobe. Bei den externen Agenturen, Beratungs- und Marktforschungsunternehmen wurden jeweils die für das Kundenunternehmen Veranwortlichen befragt.
Wenn möglich fand eine Befragung von mehreren Personen unterschiedlicher Hierarchiebenen bzw. Funktionsbereiche statt, um unterschiedliche Sichtweisen im Unternehmen zu erfassen – was in 4 Fällen realisiert werden konnte. Die Sicht externer Partner wurde in insgesamt 16 Fällen zum Unternehmen eingeholt.
Die Streuung nach Branche erfolgte nach 3 Kategorien: Gebrauchsgüter mit 8 Unternehmen, Verbrauchsgüter (13) und Dienstleistungsbetriebe (12)
Cumulative coverage of the Austrian economy as measured by number of employees: about 10% (320.000 of 3.1 mio. employed population in Austria
Method
53 qualitative face-to-face interviews were carried out during February and August 2002. The interviews consisted of mainly open-ended questions and on average took 82,2 minutes. The sample of companies includes 33 mainly internationally operating companies in the areas of fast moving consumer goods (13 companies, e.g. McDonalds, Unilever, Procter&Gamble, Red Bull), durables (8, e.g. Hewlett Packard, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Sony) and the service industry (12, e.g. Allianz, Austrian Airlines, Microsoft, Europay). To compare the perceptions of different respondents of diverse branches, i.e. the headquarter and a subsidiary, four companies were interviewed twice. The respondents operate mainly on the senior management, marketing department and strategic staff unit level, with the majority (65%) being between 31 and 45 years old; 84% of them were male. The respondents were asked to identify their branding strategy evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and to specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future.
In addition to the 33 companies, we asked 16 other persons (working in advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research agencies) with regard to their client’s brand architecture strategy, the focal company always being one of those from which an internal view had been assessed previously. When drawing the sample of companies, we looked for variety in branding strategy, the degree of internationalisation and industry was taken into account. The brand architecture strategies were assessed according to a coding scheme by four individual coders. Discrepancies were solved by discussion. The advantages and disadvantages of the different branding strategies allocated by the respondents were categorised by two independent coders, as well as deciders and external influencers on the brand architecture strategy. The results of the explorative study are to generate hypothesis as the basis for further quantitative research projects.
Die Stichprobe setzte sich aus 37 Markenverantwortliche in Unternehmen zusammen, 9 Verantwortliche in Agenturen und 7 in Beratungs und Marktforschungunternehmen zusammen, die im Zeitraum von Februar bis September 2002 durchschnittlich etwas mehr als 80 Minuten befragt wurden. Die Interviews wurden hauptsächlich in Österreich durchgeführt, wobei je ein Interview in D bzw. Ungarn durchgeführt wurde.
Die Position im Unternehmen der Befragten war hauptsächlich Markenverantwortlicher der Marktingabteilung/-leistung und des Brand Magagements, weiters befanden sich noch 6 Verantwortliche auf Geschäftsführungsebene in der Stichprobe. Bei den externen Agenturen, Beratungs- und Marktforschungsunternehmen wurden jeweils die für das Kundenunternehmen Veranwortlichen befragt.
Wenn möglich fand eine Befragung von mehreren Personen unterschiedlicher Hierarchiebenen bzw. Funktionsbereiche statt, um unterschiedliche Sichtweisen im Unternehmen zu erfassen – was in 4 Fällen realisiert werden konnte. Die Sicht externer Partner wurde in insgesamt 16 Fällen zum Unternehmen eingeholt.
Die Streuung nach Branche erfolgte nach 3 Kategorien: Gebrauchsgüter mit 8 Unternehmen, Verbrauchsgüter (13) und Dienstleistungsbetriebe (12)
9. This slides provides an overview of the interviewed companies having brands. So we tried to get a variation regarding heaquarters giving guidelines and subsidiaries mainly getting guidelines.
The sample includes:
Austrian subsidiaries of internationally operating companies: Mercedes, Sony, McD, Siemens, HP, P&G, VW, Sony, Elektrolux, Allianz (insurance company), Bacardi, Microsoft, Mercedes, AUA, Eurocard, Henkel, Unilever, SCA (hygiene industry), Don Gil (clothing), Lindt&Sprüngli (chocolate company), REWE Group (food retailer)
Headquaters : Erste Bank, OMV (petrol and mineral oil provider), Red Bull, Austria Tabak (tobacco company)
Austrian companies providing infrastructure.: ÖBB (public transport company), Post (mail company)
Austrian Specialities: RQ (sparkling water), Darbo (jam selling company), Nöm (Austrian diary products), Spar (Austrian retailer )
Furthermore we included external advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies in the sample in order to get to know the external sight of view; especially because of conflicts of persons responsible for brand architecture.
Sample of advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies with regard to their client's brand architecture strategy
We had internationally operating consultants and advertising agencies in the sample like BBDO, Ogilvy, J. Walter Thompson, Saatchi & Saatchi, Research International, Karmasin Marktforschung and national as well as lokal, Austrian advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies: Haslinger Keck, For Sale, Marketmind, Sensor, GfK,…
This slides provides an overview of the interviewed companies having brands. So we tried to get a variation regarding heaquarters giving guidelines and subsidiaries mainly getting guidelines.
The sample includes:
Austrian subsidiaries of internationally operating companies: Mercedes, Sony, McD, Siemens, HP, P&G, VW, Sony, Elektrolux, Allianz (insurance company), Bacardi, Microsoft, Mercedes, AUA, Eurocard, Henkel, Unilever, SCA (hygiene industry), Don Gil (clothing), Lindt&Sprüngli (chocolate company), REWE Group (food retailer)
Headquaters : Erste Bank, OMV (petrol and mineral oil provider), Red Bull, Austria Tabak (tobacco company)
Austrian companies providing infrastructure.: ÖBB (public transport company), Post (mail company)
Austrian Specialities: RQ (sparkling water), Darbo (jam selling company), Nöm (Austrian diary products), Spar (Austrian retailer )
Furthermore we included external advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies in the sample in order to get to know the external sight of view; especially because of conflicts of persons responsible for brand architecture.
Sample of advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies with regard to their client's brand architecture strategy
We had internationally operating consultants and advertising agencies in the sample like BBDO, Ogilvy, J. Walter Thompson, Saatchi & Saatchi, Research International, Karmasin Marktforschung and national as well as lokal, Austrian advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies: Haslinger Keck, For Sale, Marketmind, Sensor, GfK,…
10. 9 of 33 companies were categorized as using a “branded house strategy”, 6 companies an “endorsed brand” strategy, 11 companies a “subbrands under a master brand” strategy and 7 companies a “house of brands” strategy. The main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). In addition to the internal influence on brand architecture strategy it is external advertising agencies which give direction to the development of the branding strategy (41%).
In the qualitative questionnaire we asked the senior marketing/brand manager about the type of the company’s brand architecture strategy. Therefore we used illustrations because no standard terms for the brand architecture strategies are used in practice. The research team consisted of 3 persons, two of them coded the data independently. Disagreement was resolved by discussion/by a third coder.
After the assignment of the senior marketing manager to the different brand architecture strategies, not only these 37 respondents of the companies were asked to state the advantages and disadvantages of the company’s brand architecture strategy, but also the external persons responsible for the company’s brand architecture. I.e. respondents from the adverting agencies, brand consultants and market research companies were asked about the pros and cons of the client’s company’s brand architecture strategy. The question regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the brand architecture strategies was an open ended question. After categorising the data a correspondence analysis we made a correspondence analysis.
A correspondence analysis (see figure 1) of the categorised responses (sample size = 53) produced two dimensions in which the first was labeled “integration” (containing the items: consistence, stability, uniform brand communication, lower communications costs, certain target segments not reachable, cross-sectoral know how, low flexibility, slow reaction to changes) vs. “flexibility” (reaching niche markets, flexible and rapid reaction to changes). The second dimension was labeled “synergy” (internal or external synergies) vs. “interaction” (transfer of image, cannibalisation). The first dimension explains 63% of variance; the second 26%.
The correspondence analysis (see figure 1) shows that the corporate dominant strategy can be found on the first dimension “identity”. This strategy allows the use of external “synergies”, mainly because of the uniform brand communication and the lower communication costs. The brand dominant strategy is regarded as “flexible” (because of unconnected brands), showing “synergies”; but in this case mainly internal synergies (e.g. production, distribution, etc.). From the analysis arises that the dual brand strategy has neither a value at the dimension “flexibility” nor at “identity”, because of the master brand providing identity (stability, consistence) and the subbrands offering flexibility. Since there is a strong master brand it is considered as “interactive”, i.e. not only positive or negative image transfer, but also cannibalisation has an impact on this strategy. The endorsed brand strategy with subbrands having only little connection to the master brand are regarded as “flexible” because of independent brands and the possibility to act on niche markets, but the organisational brand in the background may cause “interaction” including image transfer and cannibalisation.
Die generierten Antworten der Experten, d.h. die Zuordnung der Vor- und Nachteile zu den unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien aus den Markenartikelunternehmen, Agenturen, Marktforschungs- und Beratungsunternehmen wurden dann einer Korrespondenzanalyse unterzogen, um auf statistischem Weg die Unterschiedlichkeiten der Markenstrategien anhand von Profilen erklären zu können und gemeinsame Dimensionen aufdecken zu können. D.h. wenn bestimmte Vor- und Nachteile häufig gemeinsam zugeordnet wurden, so ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit größer, dass diese Gruppe von Items eine Dimension repräsentiert.
Die Darstellung zeigt das Ergebnis der durchgeführten Korrespondenzanalyse, die mit den Antworten von 52 Praktikern durchgeführt wurde.
(Korrespondenztabelle: siehe Word Dokument „Korrestabelle_Präs_Pfingsttagung“. Euklid`sches Distanzmaß verwendet)
Abbildung 48 stellt die Items (Vor- und Nachteile) dar, welche die Dimensionen beschreiben und zeigt wie hoch ihr Beitrag zur Erklärung der Dimension ist. Des weiteren ist aus Abbildung 48 abzulesen, welche Markenstrategien durch welche Vor- und Nachteile am besten beschrieben werden und welche Markenstrategien sich in ihren Ausprägungen ähnlich sind. Die erste Dimension erklärt den höchsten Anteil der Unterschiedlichkeit zwischen den Markenstrategien (rund 63%), die zweite Dimension mit 26% und die dritte mit 11%.
Dimension 1: „Identität vs. Flexibilität“ – erklärt 63% der Varianz
Die Achsenbezeichnung „Identität“ (im +) wird von den Items „Kontinuität, Stabilität“, „bereichsübergreifendes Know-How“, „Kommunikation billig“, „einheitlicher Auftritt“ „gewisse Marktsegmente nicht bearbeitbar“ und „wenig flexibel, schnell“ getragen. Dem gegenüber steht die „Flexibilität“ (im -) wobei die Items „flexibel, schnell reagieren“, „Nischensegmente gut bearbeitbar“ und „Kostenfaktor hoch“ beschreibend wirken.
Dimension 2: „Synergie vs. Interaktion“
Das Item „gemeinsame Synergien“ trägt hier als einziger Faktor zur Achsenbezeichnung „Synergie“ (im +) bei. Dem gegenüber stehen die Items „positive Imageübertragung“, „Kannibalisierung“ und „Kostenfaktor hoch“ (im -).
(3. Dimension: Dimension 3: „ Verbund vs. Garantie“
Aufgrund der Übersichtlichkeit wurde die dritte Dimension in Abbildung 47 nicht dargestellt; sie ist aber der Ladungsmatrix (Tabelle 10) zu entnehmen. Diese Dimension erhält auf der einen Seite (im +) die Bezeichnung „Verbund", wobei die Items "gemeinsame Synergien“, "starke Marke(n)", „Innovationen besser verwertbar" und „negative Imageübertragung“ beschreibend sind. Als Achsenbezeichnung (im -) wurde der Ausdruck „Garantie" gewählt, der durch die Items „Konsumenten vertrauen in die Marke", „Größe und Stärke zeigen" und durch das Item „komplexe Markenstruktur" repräsentiert wird.
Die erste Dimension eignet sich sehr gut für die Beschreibung der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 1,021) sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (- 0,630). Die Unternehmnesmarkenstrategie wird gut durch die Achsenbezeichnung Identität getragen. Die Kontinuität und Stabilität, der einheitliche Auftritt und die billige Kommunikation werden somit vor allem dieser Markenarchitektur zugeordnet. Die Einzelmarkenstrategie zeigt sich als „flexibel“ und bietet eine gute Bearbeitbarkeit von Nischensegmenten. Hier zeigen sich jedoch auch hohe Kosten, d.h. man könnte feststellen: „Flexibilität ist teuer“. Die GM mit dominanten Einzel- bzw. Familienmarken (- 0,328) zeigt ebenfalls eine Tendenz in Richtung „Flexibilität“, was durch die relativ unabhängigen Einzelmarken dieser Strategie erklärbar ist, die nur schwach an eine Referenzmarke gebunden sind. Die GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,062) lässt keine Ausprägung auf der ersten Dimension erkennen, da sie sowohl „Identität“ durch die starke Referenzmarke vermittelt, als auch eine gewisse Flexibilität durch die eigenständigen Bereichsmarken.
Aus der Darstellung ist ersichtlich, dass bei der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 0,297), sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (+ 0,591) Synergiepotentiale bestehen. Diese Synergien zeigen sich bei der Dachmarke vor allem in der Kommunikation, während bei der Bereichsmarkenstrategie interne Synergien genutzt werden können (z.B. Produktion, Vertrieb).
Der Fall der GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,744) sieht auf den ersten Blick verwunderlich aus, da drei gänzlich verschiedene Items diese Dimension beschreiben. Wenn man allerdings die GM mit dominanter Unternehmnesmarke betrachtet, kommt man zu dem Ergebnis, dass sowohl positive Imageübertragungseffekte aufgrund einer starken Hauptmarke möglich sind, als auch eine Kannibalisierung zwischen den Einzelmarken besteht. Um diese Kannibalisierung zu verhindern, entstehen hohe Kosten. Eine Tendenz in Richtung „Interaktion“ ist auch bei der GM mit Einzel/Familienmarkendominanz (- 0,126) zu erkennen, da auch hier die Einzelmarken mit der schwachen Referenzmarke verbunden werden und somit auch die Kannibalisierungsgefahr zwischen den Bereichsmarken besteht (allerdings viel schwächer als bei der dominanten Unternehmensmarke).
Die Dachmarkenstrategie (- 0,001) zeigt keine Ausprägung in der dritten Dimension. Die starke Orientierungsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,359) geht in Richtung „Verbund“, da gemeinsame interne und externe Synergien der Bereichsmarken genutzt werden können und somit auch Innovationen bei einer Marke auf die andere übertragen werden können. Es zeigt sich auch die Stärke der Referenzmarke und die damit verbundene Gefahr der negativen Imageübertragung durch den starken Bezug zur Hauptmarke. Ähnlich verhält sich die Bereichsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,311), die eine etwas geringere Ausprägung auf der 3. Dimension besitzt. Hier kommen vor allem die starken Marken zum Ausdruck, sowie die bereichsmarkenübergreifenden Innovationen und Synergien.
Die schwache Orientierungsmarke (- 0,668) zeigt eine starke Ausprägung auf der dritten Dimension in Richtung „Garantie“, wobei das Konsumentenvertrauen durch die Referenzmarke hervorgerufen wird, die die Vertrauenswürdigkeit der einzelnen Bereichsmarken vermittelt. Ganz deutlich ist hier auch die Komplexität der schwachen Orientierungsmarkenstrategie ersichtlich.)
Die Vor- und Nachteile auf anderen Märkten:
Die + und – der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt wurden von den Apn überlegt zugeordnet. Teilweise wegen Marketingabteilung: Marketingsichtweise, weniger Personal, Mitarbeiter,… Da dies ex-ante erwartet wurde, wurde zusätzlich im Fragebogen Satzergänzungstests gemacht: nach den + und – auf anderen wichtigen Zielmärkten gefragt, z.B. am Kapitalmarkt, den Mitarbeitern, dem Arbeitsmarkt oder der Distribution.
9 of 33 companies were categorized as using a “branded house strategy”, 6 companies an “endorsed brand” strategy, 11 companies a “subbrands under a master brand” strategy and 7 companies a “house of brands” strategy. The main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). In addition to the internal influence on brand architecture strategy it is external advertising agencies which give direction to the development of the branding strategy (41%).
In the qualitative questionnaire we asked the senior marketing/brand manager about the type of the company’s brand architecture strategy. Therefore we used illustrations because no standard terms for the brand architecture strategies are used in practice. The research team consisted of 3 persons, two of them coded the data independently. Disagreement was resolved by discussion/by a third coder.
After the assignment of the senior marketing manager to the different brand architecture strategies, not only these 37 respondents of the companies were asked to state the advantages and disadvantages of the company’s brand architecture strategy, but also the external persons responsible for the company’s brand architecture. I.e. respondents from the adverting agencies, brand consultants and market research companies were asked about the pros and cons of the client’s company’s brand architecture strategy. The question regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the brand architecture strategies was an open ended question. After categorising the data a correspondence analysis we made a correspondence analysis.
A correspondence analysis (see figure 1) of the categorised responses (sample size = 53) produced two dimensions in which the first was labeled “integration” (containing the items: consistence, stability, uniform brand communication, lower communications costs, certain target segments not reachable, cross-sectoral know how, low flexibility, slow reaction to changes) vs. “flexibility” (reaching niche markets, flexible and rapid reaction to changes). The second dimension was labeled “synergy” (internal or external synergies) vs. “interaction” (transfer of image, cannibalisation). The first dimension explains 63% of variance; the second 26%.
The correspondence analysis (see figure 1) shows that the corporate dominant strategy can be found on the first dimension “identity”. This strategy allows the use of external “synergies”, mainly because of the uniform brand communication and the lower communication costs. The brand dominant strategy is regarded as “flexible” (because of unconnected brands), showing “synergies”; but in this case mainly internal synergies (e.g. production, distribution, etc.). From the analysis arises that the dual brand strategy has neither a value at the dimension “flexibility” nor at “identity”, because of the master brand providing identity (stability, consistence) and the subbrands offering flexibility. Since there is a strong master brand it is considered as “interactive”, i.e. not only positive or negative image transfer, but also cannibalisation has an impact on this strategy. The endorsed brand strategy with subbrands having only little connection to the master brand are regarded as “flexible” because of independent brands and the possibility to act on niche markets, but the organisational brand in the background may cause “interaction” including image transfer and cannibalisation.
Die generierten Antworten der Experten, d.h. die Zuordnung der Vor- und Nachteile zu den unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien aus den Markenartikelunternehmen, Agenturen, Marktforschungs- und Beratungsunternehmen wurden dann einer Korrespondenzanalyse unterzogen, um auf statistischem Weg die Unterschiedlichkeiten der Markenstrategien anhand von Profilen erklären zu können und gemeinsame Dimensionen aufdecken zu können. D.h. wenn bestimmte Vor- und Nachteile häufig gemeinsam zugeordnet wurden, so ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit größer, dass diese Gruppe von Items eine Dimension repräsentiert.
Die Darstellung zeigt das Ergebnis der durchgeführten Korrespondenzanalyse, die mit den Antworten von 52 Praktikern durchgeführt wurde.
(Korrespondenztabelle: siehe Word Dokument „Korrestabelle_Präs_Pfingsttagung“. Euklid`sches Distanzmaß verwendet)
Abbildung 48 stellt die Items (Vor- und Nachteile) dar, welche die Dimensionen beschreiben und zeigt wie hoch ihr Beitrag zur Erklärung der Dimension ist. Des weiteren ist aus Abbildung 48 abzulesen, welche Markenstrategien durch welche Vor- und Nachteile am besten beschrieben werden und welche Markenstrategien sich in ihren Ausprägungen ähnlich sind. Die erste Dimension erklärt den höchsten Anteil der Unterschiedlichkeit zwischen den Markenstrategien (rund 63%), die zweite Dimension mit 26% und die dritte mit 11%.
Dimension 1: „Identität vs. Flexibilität“ – erklärt 63% der Varianz
Die Achsenbezeichnung „Identität“ (im +) wird von den Items „Kontinuität, Stabilität“, „bereichsübergreifendes Know-How“, „Kommunikation billig“, „einheitlicher Auftritt“ „gewisse Marktsegmente nicht bearbeitbar“ und „wenig flexibel, schnell“ getragen. Dem gegenüber steht die „Flexibilität“ (im -) wobei die Items „flexibel, schnell reagieren“, „Nischensegmente gut bearbeitbar“ und „Kostenfaktor hoch“ beschreibend wirken.
Dimension 2: „Synergie vs. Interaktion“
Das Item „gemeinsame Synergien“ trägt hier als einziger Faktor zur Achsenbezeichnung „Synergie“ (im +) bei. Dem gegenüber stehen die Items „positive Imageübertragung“, „Kannibalisierung“ und „Kostenfaktor hoch“ (im -).
(3. Dimension: Dimension 3: „ Verbund vs. Garantie“
Aufgrund der Übersichtlichkeit wurde die dritte Dimension in Abbildung 47 nicht dargestellt; sie ist aber der Ladungsmatrix (Tabelle 10) zu entnehmen. Diese Dimension erhält auf der einen Seite (im +) die Bezeichnung „Verbund", wobei die Items "gemeinsame Synergien“, "starke Marke(n)", „Innovationen besser verwertbar" und „negative Imageübertragung“ beschreibend sind. Als Achsenbezeichnung (im -) wurde der Ausdruck „Garantie" gewählt, der durch die Items „Konsumenten vertrauen in die Marke", „Größe und Stärke zeigen" und durch das Item „komplexe Markenstruktur" repräsentiert wird.
Die erste Dimension eignet sich sehr gut für die Beschreibung der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 1,021) sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (- 0,630). Die Unternehmnesmarkenstrategie wird gut durch die Achsenbezeichnung Identität getragen. Die Kontinuität und Stabilität, der einheitliche Auftritt und die billige Kommunikation werden somit vor allem dieser Markenarchitektur zugeordnet. Die Einzelmarkenstrategie zeigt sich als „flexibel“ und bietet eine gute Bearbeitbarkeit von Nischensegmenten. Hier zeigen sich jedoch auch hohe Kosten, d.h. man könnte feststellen: „Flexibilität ist teuer“. Die GM mit dominanten Einzel- bzw. Familienmarken (- 0,328) zeigt ebenfalls eine Tendenz in Richtung „Flexibilität“, was durch die relativ unabhängigen Einzelmarken dieser Strategie erklärbar ist, die nur schwach an eine Referenzmarke gebunden sind. Die GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,062) lässt keine Ausprägung auf der ersten Dimension erkennen, da sie sowohl „Identität“ durch die starke Referenzmarke vermittelt, als auch eine gewisse Flexibilität durch die eigenständigen Bereichsmarken.
Aus der Darstellung ist ersichtlich, dass bei der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 0,297), sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (+ 0,591) Synergiepotentiale bestehen. Diese Synergien zeigen sich bei der Dachmarke vor allem in der Kommunikation, während bei der Bereichsmarkenstrategie interne Synergien genutzt werden können (z.B. Produktion, Vertrieb).
Der Fall der GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,744) sieht auf den ersten Blick verwunderlich aus, da drei gänzlich verschiedene Items diese Dimension beschreiben. Wenn man allerdings die GM mit dominanter Unternehmnesmarke betrachtet, kommt man zu dem Ergebnis, dass sowohl positive Imageübertragungseffekte aufgrund einer starken Hauptmarke möglich sind, als auch eine Kannibalisierung zwischen den Einzelmarken besteht. Um diese Kannibalisierung zu verhindern, entstehen hohe Kosten. Eine Tendenz in Richtung „Interaktion“ ist auch bei der GM mit Einzel/Familienmarkendominanz (- 0,126) zu erkennen, da auch hier die Einzelmarken mit der schwachen Referenzmarke verbunden werden und somit auch die Kannibalisierungsgefahr zwischen den Bereichsmarken besteht (allerdings viel schwächer als bei der dominanten Unternehmensmarke).
Die Dachmarkenstrategie (- 0,001) zeigt keine Ausprägung in der dritten Dimension. Die starke Orientierungsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,359) geht in Richtung „Verbund“, da gemeinsame interne und externe Synergien der Bereichsmarken genutzt werden können und somit auch Innovationen bei einer Marke auf die andere übertragen werden können. Es zeigt sich auch die Stärke der Referenzmarke und die damit verbundene Gefahr der negativen Imageübertragung durch den starken Bezug zur Hauptmarke. Ähnlich verhält sich die Bereichsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,311), die eine etwas geringere Ausprägung auf der 3. Dimension besitzt. Hier kommen vor allem die starken Marken zum Ausdruck, sowie die bereichsmarkenübergreifenden Innovationen und Synergien.
Die schwache Orientierungsmarke (- 0,668) zeigt eine starke Ausprägung auf der dritten Dimension in Richtung „Garantie“, wobei das Konsumentenvertrauen durch die Referenzmarke hervorgerufen wird, die die Vertrauenswürdigkeit der einzelnen Bereichsmarken vermittelt. Ganz deutlich ist hier auch die Komplexität der schwachen Orientierungsmarkenstrategie ersichtlich.)
Die Vor- und Nachteile auf anderen Märkten:
Die + und – der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt wurden von den Apn überlegt zugeordnet. Teilweise wegen Marketingabteilung: Marketingsichtweise, weniger Personal, Mitarbeiter,… Da dies ex-ante erwartet wurde, wurde zusätzlich im Fragebogen Satzergänzungstests gemacht: nach den + und – auf anderen wichtigen Zielmärkten gefragt, z.B. am Kapitalmarkt, den Mitarbeitern, dem Arbeitsmarkt oder der Distribution.
11. A majority of the respondents identified the important role of strong brands not only on the consumer market, but also for attracting shareholders and highly qualified employees. Moreover, strong brands and efficient brand architecture have positive effects regarding distribution partners, the corporate culture and the motivation of employees.
The respondents were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different brand architecture strategies on the consumer market but responses regarding pros and cons on other markets were only stated on request of the interviewer.
We included open ended questions
Fragestellungen:
Unsere Markenstrategie verstärkt unsere Position am Arbeitsmarkt weil… (ist wichtig für unsere Mitarbeiter/manche Mitarbeiter würden sich eine Markenstrategie wünschen weil…)
Bei den Geldgebern bzw. am Kapitalmarkt hält man unsere Markenarchitektur weil/am Kapitalmarkt sieht man in unserer Markenstrategie gewisse Nachteile weil...
Unsere Markenstrategie bereitet uns teilweise Probleme am Arbeitsmarkt weil…
1. Dachmarkenunternehmen: nur eine Marke
Einzelmarkenstrategie
Dachmarke
A majority of the respondents identified the important role of strong brands not only on the consumer market, but also for attracting shareholders and highly qualified employees. Moreover, strong brands and efficient brand architecture have positive effects regarding distribution partners, the corporate culture and the motivation of employees.
The respondents were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different brand architecture strategies on the consumer market but responses regarding pros and cons on other markets were only stated on request of the interviewer.
We included open ended questions
Fragestellungen:
Unsere Markenstrategie verstärkt unsere Position am Arbeitsmarkt weil… (ist wichtig für unsere Mitarbeiter/manche Mitarbeiter würden sich eine Markenstrategie wünschen weil…)
Bei den Geldgebern bzw. am Kapitalmarkt hält man unsere Markenarchitektur weil/am Kapitalmarkt sieht man in unserer Markenstrategie gewisse Nachteile weil...
Unsere Markenstrategie bereitet uns teilweise Probleme am Arbeitsmarkt weil…
1. Dachmarkenunternehmen: nur eine Marke
Einzelmarkenstrategie
Dachmarke
12. 94% (29 of 31) of the companies have at least one silver bullet usually pointed out in advertising but often no “sales driver”
90% (26 of 29) have strategic brands that are supported by the company (may be identical with the silver bullet of the company)
63% (17 of 27) of the companies have cash-cows in their brand portfolio
88% (22 of 25) believe that their brand portfolio as a whole is more valuable for the company compared to the sum of brand equity of single brands
Roles of brands in the brand portfolio
A further result of the study showed that 94% of the interviewed companies own one brand bearing a more positive image than any other brand in the portfolio. This brand is not necessarily the one generating the largest part of turnover or profit. 90% of the companies hold a strategic brand, in terms of image market position or future importance. 63% of the respondents defined a brand in the company’s portfolio as a cash-cow.
Aaker terminology:
(Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand.
„poor dog“ Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty.
„image brand“ Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand.
Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant – this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.)
Roles of brands in the brand portfolio
A further result of the study showed that 94% of the interviewed companies own one brand bearing a more positive image than any other brand in the portfolio. This brand is not necessarily the one generating the largest part of turnover or profit. 90% of the companies hold a strategic brand, in terms of image market position or future importance. 63% of the respondents defined a brand in the company’s portfolio as a cash-cow.
Aaker terminology:
(Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand.
„poor dog“ Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty.
„image brand“ Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand.
Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant – this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.)
13. Asked for the main influence on future brand architecture, the respondents perceived the globalization (77%), new findings of market research (77%), mergers and acquisitions (74%), changes regarding consumer trends (71%), changes in the target market (71%), competitors (65%) and technological changes (62%) the most influential factors on brand architecture. These findings confirm factors identified by other authors (Shocker et al. 1994).
Further factors Asked for the main influence on future brand architecture, the respondents perceived the globalization (77%), new findings of market research (77%), mergers and acquisitions (74%), changes regarding consumer trends (71%), changes in the target market (71%), competitors (65%) and technological changes (62%) the most influential factors on brand architecture. These findings confirm factors identified by other authors (Shocker et al. 1994).
Further factors
14. Some Hypotheses resulting from the study Only the corporate dominant strategy and the brand dominant strategy are planned by the company. Mixed brand architecture strategies are often path-dependent (mergers & acquisitions, purchase of competitive brands,…).
The advantages and disadvantages of different brand architecture strategies are aware in respect of the consumer market. Pros and cons on other important target markets, like the labor and capital market, regarding the employees and distributors are conscious but only on request.
The respondents of the companies consider a lot of influential factors on the brand architecture strategy (globalization, changing consumer trends,…), nevertheless 70% (23 of 33) believe that their brand architecture strategy will not be modified within the next 5 years.
Advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies forecast an internationalization of the brand architecture of their clients and a rising complexity of the brand architecture management. For their own future they feel more pressure of operating internationally.
The brand portfolio of the companies is actively managed.
Detailed analysis of many case studies with a semi-structured questionnaire
Variability of the sample in terms the sector, brand architecture strategy and headquarter/subsidiary
Multiple informants in respect of the brand architecture strategy of the focal company
Guidance for future quantitative research
Punkt 1: Die beiden Pole der Markenarchitektur, die Einzel- und Unternehmensmarkenstrategie werden vom Unternehmen langfristig aufgebaut und beibehalten. Bei den komplexen Markenarchitekturen hat sich lt. Auskunft der Experten die Struktur der Marken im Unternehmensportfolio aufgrund von Marken- bzw. Unternehmensübernahmen, des historischen Wachstums der Marken oder durch Ausrutscher in der Markenführung ergeben. Hier fehlt es somit oft an systematischem Markenarchitekturmanagment.
Punkt 2 + 3: Die Funktionen der Marken im Markenportfolio sind den befragten Experten sehr bewusst und werden aktiv gemanagt.
94 % der Unternehmen haben mindestens einen Imageträger, der in der Regel in der Kommunikation hervorgehoben wird, aber oft nicht bedeutendster Umsatzbringer ist.
90 % haben strategische Marken, die vom Unternehmen besonders gefördert werden => diese können, müssen aber nicht ident sein mit dem/n Imageträger/n
63 % der befragten Unternehmen haben Cash-Cows im Markenportfolio
88 % sind der Meinung, dass ihr Gesamtmarkenportfolios mehr wert ist, als die Summe der einzelnen Marken
82 % denken, dass sie vor allem durch „Vertrauen“ und „Image“ Kundenbindung erreichen.
Ebenso sind den Befragten die Vor- und Nachteile der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt bewusst. Die Vor- und Nachteile, die die Marke für andere Faktormärkte (Arbeitsmarkt, Mitarbeiter, Kapitalmarkt, Distribution) bringt, sind den Experten zwar bewusst, werden allerdings erst auf Nachfrage genannt.
Punkt 4: Bei der Frage, wie die Markenstrategie des eigenen Unternehmens in ca. 5 Jahren aussehen könnte, wird trotz vieler Einflussfaktoren, die lt. den befragten Experten aus den Markenartikelunternehmen die Markenarchitektur beeinflussen könnten, glauben 70% (23) der Interviewpartner, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur beibehalten wird, 24% (8), denken, dass sie anders aussehen wird, nämlich aufgrund der Reduktion von Marken, Unternehmensübernahmen, Markenbeziehungsveränderungen und Integration unter ein Markendach. 6% (2) der Befragten waren sich nicht sicher, ob eine Veränderung der Markenarchitektur innerhalb der nächsten 5 Jahre nötig sein wird.
70 % (26 von 37) der befragten Markenartikelexperten meinen, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur des Unternehmens in Zukunft beibehalten und konsequent durchgeführt werden wird. Auf der anderen Seite sind sie sich der Dynamik des Marktes und vieler Einflussfaktoren auf die Marken-strategie bewusst. Als Haupteinflussfaktoren auf die Markenstrategie werden v.a. die Globalisierung (77% = 26 Befragte), neue Marktforschungserkenntnisse (77%), Unternehmensübernahmen (74% = 25), Veränderung der Konsumententrends (71% = 24), Veränderung der ZG-Merkmale (68% = 23), brancheneigene Konkurrenz (65% = 22), technologische Umbrüche (62% = 21), neue Medien (59% = 20), gesetzliche Änderungen (59% = 20), Konjunkturschwankungen der Weltwirtschaft (53% = 18), Geldgeber, Kapitalmarkt (53%), Unternehmenskultur (53%), branchenfremde Unternehmen (41% = 14), Weltpolitik (35% = 12), Arbeitsmarkt (32% = 11), Umweltproblematik (29% = 10), Interessensvertretungen (24% = 8), Erwartungen des Handels (24% = 8)
Die 16 befragten externen Partnerbetriebe der Markenartikelunternehmen sind sich bewusst, dass die einzelnen Marken, auch wenn sie von unterschiedlichen Beratungsunternehmen bzw. Agenturen betreut werden einer Rücksichtnahme bedürfen (Aufgrund Kannibalisierung, Positionierungsabstimmung, d.h. sie sind sich ihrer Verantwortung bewusst, nur 2 der 16 Personen finden keine Abstimmung der Marken im Portfolio nötig. 9 von 16 Personen meinten, dass es einen Trend zu globalen Marken geben wird (weil Unternehmensgröße nimmt zu, Kostensynergien, Vereinheitlichung möglich,…), 1 Person lokale Marken und 6 beides je nach Branche. Trend Richtung Einzelmarken (4, bessere Marktabdeckung, ZG-Ansprache, aber steigende Markenzahl,…), sowohl Dach als auch Einzelmarken (4), Trend zur Dachmarke (3). Only the corporate dominant strategy and the brand dominant strategy are planned by the company. Mixed brand architecture strategies are often path-dependent (mergers & acquisitions, purchase of competitive brands,…).
The advantages and disadvantages of different brand architecture strategies are aware in respect of the consumer market. Pros and cons on other important target markets, like the labor and capital market, regarding the employees and distributors are conscious but only on request.
The respondents of the companies consider a lot of influential factors on the brand architecture strategy (globalization, changing consumer trends,…), nevertheless 70% (23 of 33) believe that their brand architecture strategy will not be modified within the next 5 years.
Advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies forecast an internationalization of the brand architecture of their clients and a rising complexity of the brand architecture management. For their own future they feel more pressure of operating internationally.
The brand portfolio of the companies is actively managed.
Detailed analysis of many case studies with a semi-structured questionnaire
Variability of the sample in terms the sector, brand architecture strategy and headquarter/subsidiary
Multiple informants in respect of the brand architecture strategy of the focal company
Guidance for future quantitative research
Punkt 1: Die beiden Pole der Markenarchitektur, die Einzel- und Unternehmensmarkenstrategie werden vom Unternehmen langfristig aufgebaut und beibehalten. Bei den komplexen Markenarchitekturen hat sich lt. Auskunft der Experten die Struktur der Marken im Unternehmensportfolio aufgrund von Marken- bzw. Unternehmensübernahmen, des historischen Wachstums der Marken oder durch Ausrutscher in der Markenführung ergeben. Hier fehlt es somit oft an systematischem Markenarchitekturmanagment.
Punkt 2 + 3: Die Funktionen der Marken im Markenportfolio sind den befragten Experten sehr bewusst und werden aktiv gemanagt.
94 % der Unternehmen haben mindestens einen Imageträger, der in der Regel in der Kommunikation hervorgehoben wird, aber oft nicht bedeutendster Umsatzbringer ist.
90 % haben strategische Marken, die vom Unternehmen besonders gefördert werden => diese können, müssen aber nicht ident sein mit dem/n Imageträger/n
63 % der befragten Unternehmen haben Cash-Cows im Markenportfolio
88 % sind der Meinung, dass ihr Gesamtmarkenportfolios mehr wert ist, als die Summe der einzelnen Marken
82 % denken, dass sie vor allem durch „Vertrauen“ und „Image“ Kundenbindung erreichen.
Ebenso sind den Befragten die Vor- und Nachteile der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt bewusst. Die Vor- und Nachteile, die die Marke für andere Faktormärkte (Arbeitsmarkt, Mitarbeiter, Kapitalmarkt, Distribution) bringt, sind den Experten zwar bewusst, werden allerdings erst auf Nachfrage genannt.
Punkt 4: Bei der Frage, wie die Markenstrategie des eigenen Unternehmens in ca. 5 Jahren aussehen könnte, wird trotz vieler Einflussfaktoren, die lt. den befragten Experten aus den Markenartikelunternehmen die Markenarchitektur beeinflussen könnten, glauben 70% (23) der Interviewpartner, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur beibehalten wird, 24% (8), denken, dass sie anders aussehen wird, nämlich aufgrund der Reduktion von Marken, Unternehmensübernahmen, Markenbeziehungsveränderungen und Integration unter ein Markendach. 6% (2) der Befragten waren sich nicht sicher, ob eine Veränderung der Markenarchitektur innerhalb der nächsten 5 Jahre nötig sein wird.
70 % (26 von 37) der befragten Markenartikelexperten meinen, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur des Unternehmens in Zukunft beibehalten und konsequent durchgeführt werden wird. Auf der anderen Seite sind sie sich der Dynamik des Marktes und vieler Einflussfaktoren auf die Marken-strategie bewusst. Als Haupteinflussfaktoren auf die Markenstrategie werden v.a. die Globalisierung (77% = 26 Befragte), neue Marktforschungserkenntnisse (77%), Unternehmensübernahmen (74% = 25), Veränderung der Konsumententrends (71% = 24), Veränderung der ZG-Merkmale (68% = 23), brancheneigene Konkurrenz (65% = 22), technologische Umbrüche (62% = 21), neue Medien (59% = 20), gesetzliche Änderungen (59% = 20), Konjunkturschwankungen der Weltwirtschaft (53% = 18), Geldgeber, Kapitalmarkt (53%), Unternehmenskultur (53%), branchenfremde Unternehmen (41% = 14), Weltpolitik (35% = 12), Arbeitsmarkt (32% = 11), Umweltproblematik (29% = 10), Interessensvertretungen (24% = 8), Erwartungen des Handels (24% = 8)
Die 16 befragten externen Partnerbetriebe der Markenartikelunternehmen sind sich bewusst, dass die einzelnen Marken, auch wenn sie von unterschiedlichen Beratungsunternehmen bzw. Agenturen betreut werden einer Rücksichtnahme bedürfen (Aufgrund Kannibalisierung, Positionierungsabstimmung, d.h. sie sind sich ihrer Verantwortung bewusst, nur 2 der 16 Personen finden keine Abstimmung der Marken im Portfolio nötig. 9 von 16 Personen meinten, dass es einen Trend zu globalen Marken geben wird (weil Unternehmensgröße nimmt zu, Kostensynergien, Vereinheitlichung möglich,…), 1 Person lokale Marken und 6 beides je nach Branche. Trend Richtung Einzelmarken (4, bessere Marktabdeckung, ZG-Ansprache, aber steigende Markenzahl,…), sowohl Dach als auch Einzelmarken (4), Trend zur Dachmarke (3).
15. Limitations However, the previously mentioned results suffer from some limitations
(judgement sample) of companies ? no conclusion regarding the population
Quantitative Research
Building a clear and consistent brand architecture is an essential task for a company’s market strategy. An effective brand architecture helps to ensure that the value of the company’s brands is maximised across markets and that cost efficiency can be achieved. This study presents a valuable contribution to the parties involved in brand management. It showed that the main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). The results of the questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different brand strategies showed a partial agreement between the theoretical approaches and the view of practitioner’s knowledge, but the new and most interesting finding of the study is the result of the correspondence analysis showing the dimensions “identity” vs. “flexibility” and “synergy” vs. “interaction”. These dimensions show that every branding strategy involves a clear set of advantages and disadvantages.
The findings provide an enlargement of the theoretical knowledge of brand architecture, not only in the area of people and factors influencing the branding strategy but also regarding the strategic roles in the brand portfolio. The study supplements the theoretical point of view with the opinions and experiences of practitioners. However, one limitation of this research is the use of a relatively small sample size; therefore results can not be generalised. In addition to that, the interviews were accomplished with international operating companies, limited to subsidiaries or headquarters in Germany and Austria. This qualitative study should serve as basis for quantitative future research.
Befragungen durchwegs in Ö. : wir haben wohl HQ österreichischer Mittelbetriebe in der Stichprobe, aber keine Headquarter international tätiger Unternehmen, die ev. anders laufen. However, the previously mentioned results suffer from some limitations
(judgement sample) of companies ? no conclusion regarding the population
Quantitative Research
Building a clear and consistent brand architecture is an essential task for a company’s market strategy. An effective brand architecture helps to ensure that the value of the company’s brands is maximised across markets and that cost efficiency can be achieved. This study presents a valuable contribution to the parties involved in brand management. It showed that the main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). The results of the questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different brand strategies showed a partial agreement between the theoretical approaches and the view of practitioner’s knowledge, but the new and most interesting finding of the study is the result of the correspondence analysis showing the dimensions “identity” vs. “flexibility” and “synergy” vs. “interaction”. These dimensions show that every branding strategy involves a clear set of advantages and disadvantages.
The findings provide an enlargement of the theoretical knowledge of brand architecture, not only in the area of people and factors influencing the branding strategy but also regarding the strategic roles in the brand portfolio. The study supplements the theoretical point of view with the opinions and experiences of practitioners. However, one limitation of this research is the use of a relatively small sample size; therefore results can not be generalised. In addition to that, the interviews were accomplished with international operating companies, limited to subsidiaries or headquarters in Germany and Austria. This qualitative study should serve as basis for quantitative future research.
Befragungen durchwegs in Ö. : wir haben wohl HQ österreichischer Mittelbetriebe in der Stichprobe, aber keine Headquarter international tätiger Unternehmen, die ev. anders laufen.
17. Sample of advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies (with regard to their client's brand architecture strategy)
