De Laatste Loodjes

1. De Laatste Loodjes BABES Colloquium 2005 Thursday, December 8

2. Presentation • Laatste Loodjes: December BABES 2001 – 2005; december 2006 Dr. JURG ?! • Dissertation Content : 30 Minutes (Feedback on Concept EMAC Presentation 2006) • Dissertation Process: 15 Minutes • Questions : 15 Minutes

3. Gap in branding research knowledge • Systematic problem identification (Ackoof, 1978; Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Chapman, 1989; Butler, 1995; Gibson, 1998) • Soft, messy problems (Chapman, 1989; Checkland & Scholes, 1990/2005; Hackley, 1999; Zikmund, 2003; Zaltman) • Effects of decisions (Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Davis & Moe, 1997; Durgee, O’Connor & Veryzer, 1999; Desai, 2002) • Use of metaphors (Arndt, 1985; Callingham & Baker, 2001; Morgan; Lakoff & Johnson; Zaltman; O’Malley & Patterson, 2005)

4. Systems constellations technique • Clears overview of complex interrelationships and stimulate changes (Gminder, 2005) • Produces visual information, complementary to verbal information (Franke, 1996) • Improves clients’ self-image and psychic state (Höppner, 2001) • Experiences of stand-ins are very significantly determined by their positions and not by their individual life stories (Schlötter, 2005).

5. Main steps in systems constellations • Interview • Projection • Modification • Vision

6. Interview phase

7. First part of Projection phase: person

8. Second part of Projection phase: position

9. Intermediate part of the Projection phase

10. End of the Projection phase

11. Brand application logic • Brand-as-a-person metaphor (Seguela, 1982; Aaker J.) • Brand positioning / mapping (Kotler, Aaker, Keller) • Brand systems thinking (Mintzberg, 1998; Keller, 2002; Aaker, 2004; Franzen & Van den Berg, 2003;Van der Vorst, 2004)

12. Explorative dissertation aim • How useful (accurate, reliable, and valid) • do marketing experts • judge the application of the systems constellation technique • to identify branding problems?

13. Explorative EMAC 2006 paper aim • How valid • do marketing experts • judge the 2004 forum branding constellations • to identify branding problems?

14. Explorative EMAC paper 2006 questions • Do marketing experts have the opinion that the constellations clarified branding problems? • Do they consider that it generates many good ideas on how to tackle the problem? • Do they think that it enhances brand systems thinking?

15. Methodology • Experiencing rather than reading (Miles & Huberman, 1994) • Purposeful, experiential, and snowball sampling (Mason, 2002) • ‘Ethical’ agreements branders: no-competitors, no-harm agreement, and freedom of destruction • Preparation phase: minimal, by researcher and by e-mail

16. Direct questionnaire • Differentiation between ‘branders’ and ‘observers’ • Three clarification categories in content analysis on the level of branding problem clarification: Clarified, Limited Clarified, and Not Clarified • Four quality categories in ideation content analysis: GoodIdeas (new, actionable, leverage), Limited Ideas (rather vague), No Ideas, and No Answer.

17. E-mail questionnaire Six scoring items (with comments) on enhanced brand systems thinking: • More awareness of branding reality • New perspective on brand element relationships • More awareness of implicit brand knowledge • Clearer brand vision • More profound experience of the brand as a system • Enhanced scenario thinking.

18. Findings (1M):Ideation by Magazine brander in Projection phase Legend Stand-ins: C: Current readers D: Directors E: Editorial office (brander) M: 40 year-old existing Magazine R: Reformed magazine W: Well-covered articles Z: Zap-articles

19. Findings (1TA):Ideation by Training Company brander in Projection phase A LegendStand-Ins: BL : Brand name D : Director (brander) H : High board

20. Findings (1TB):Ideation by Training Company brander in Projection phase B LegendStand-Ins: BL : Brand name D : Director (brander) H : High board M1 : Market group 1 M2 : Market group 2 M3 : Market group 3

21. Findings (1A): Quantity and quality of ideas by ‘audience’ experts to tackle Magazine respectively Training Company problem

22. Findings (1S): Quantity and quality of ideas by ‘stand-in’ experts to tackle Magazine respectively Training Company problem

23. Findings (2): Experts’ Scores on Six Aspects of Enhanced Brand Systems Thinking

24. Findings (3): Problem Clarification to Audience in Magazine and Training Company Constellation

25. Limitations • Facilitator’s ignorance of brand knowledge • Branders and branding experts ‘believed’ in subconscious knowledge processing.

26. Discussion • Many good ideas were generated, brand systems thinking enhanced and branding problem clarified • Both 2004 branders applied spontaneously, and 22 Marketing experts returned • No difference between problem content and settings • First validation step (Shocker & Zaltman, 1977; Sykes, 1991) • Branders as spider – or fly – in web (Panigyrakis & Veloutsou, 2000; Bergstrom a. o. 2002;Mitchell, 2002)

27. Implication: further research seems useful • Replication study • More conclusive, experimental design: branding constellation versus brainstorming, lateral thinking, synectics, or ZMET • Application with facilitator having brand knowledge • Application to market research companies’ briefing • Application to brand teams • Involving sociometrists, neuroscientists, and field theorists

28. Dissertation process • Total of 11 Chapters and 150 pages • First 6 Chapters are judged • 2006 June: Promotion Committee

29. Branding constellation theme • 8 Finished students (3 in 2004; 5 in 2005) • 9th Student, 2005, December 13 (Ed Peelen) • 10th – 15th Student, 2006 January - February • 16th – 19th Student, 2006 June • 1 Submitted refereed journal article before 2006 June