1 / 20

Research on branding constellations

Research on branding constellations. 2 nd IOCTI, Bergen 2006, October 16 20.00 – 21.30 by Wim Jurg. Enriching branding research. By systematic identification of ill-structured problems (Ackoff 1978, Chapman 1989, Butler 1995, Gibson 1998)

drago
Download Presentation

Research on branding constellations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research on branding constellations 2nd IOCTI, Bergen 2006, October 16 20.00 – 21.30 by Wim Jurg

  2. Enriching branding research ... • By systematic identification of ill-structured problems (Ackoff 1978, Chapman 1989, Butler 1995, Gibson 1998) • On effects of solution decisions (Yadav & Karonkanda 1985, Davis & Moe 1997, Durgee et al. 1999, Desai 2002) • Using the mind of the manager (Mintzberg et al. 1998, Zaltman 2003, Blichfeldt 2005, Nijssen & Agustin 2005) • In an antropomorphic projection (Aaker, 1997; Tan Tsu Wee, 2004; Freling & Lukas, 2005 ) • As a soft systems metaphor (Checkland & Scholes 1992/2005, Hackley 1999, Zikmund 2003, Zaltman 2003)

  3. Branding constellations: application of systems constellation to branding problems An embodied way to identify branding problems based on the brand-as-a-person approach • Origin: psychodrama; Moreno 1920s-; Dichter 1940s-: father of qualitative market research • Five main phases: dialogue, construct projection, systems projection, systems feedback, and simulation(Franke 1995, 2003; Höppner, 2001; Wesseler et al., 2003; Gminder, 2005, 2006)

  4. 1. Dialogue: verbalizing branding problem, solution decison, and core constructs

  5. 2. Construct projection: Anthorpomorphizing constructs

  6. 3. Systems projection:Positioning the stand-in constructs in the room

  7. 4. Emotional systems feedback: Construct stand-in questions: 1. How do you feel? 2. How about your tele experiences? 3. Which movements would you like to make?

  8. 5. Simulation and vision phase:Entering decisionconstruct and optimizing constellation energy

  9. Aim branding constellation research project • How useful (content and construct valid, reliable, accurate) • do marketing experts (users and observers) • judge the application of systems constellations • to identify branding problems?

  10. Research project methodology • Multiple case study design: 32 branding problems • All ‘third-person’ constellations • Four settings: marketing expert (7), problem-owners (9), marketing-lay (8), another facilitator (8) • Core: three open marketing expert conferences; in 2002 (3), 2003 (2), 2004 (2): 25-35 experts • Conference and e-mail questionnaires and branders’ reflections on later expert conferences

  11. Findings • BCs cleared branding problems to users and experts • BCs were not regarded reliable; meaning ambiguous (e.g. Geursen: go native) • In 2004 conference 22 of the 34 ‘recidivist’ experts • No differences between problem contents • Brand-lay setting and ‘systemic stand-ins’ doubtfull • Systemic test-retest reliability, but no analytic one • No correlation between tele and distances/angles

  12. Limitations • Facilitator’s ignorance of branding – only organizational and product construct interventions • Theoretical sampling: marketing experts ‘believed’ in subconscious knowledge processing.

  13. Theoretical validity • Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology (Madelung in SSB) • Action research (Lewin), Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland) and metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson) • Sensemaking process (Weick) • Emotional intelligence (Goleman) • Lateral thinking (De Bono) • Brainstorming: creative – critical differentiation (Osborn) • Field theory problematic in science (Mc Taggart, Laszlo)

  14. Projection constellation member – leader Unit A = Army EOD, Unit B = Air Force EOD en Unit C = Navy EOD

  15. Core intervention leaderUnit A = Army EOD Unit B = Air Force EOD Unit C = Navy EODNew organization = EODD

  16. Vision constellation member – leaderUnit A = Army EOD, Unit B = Air Force EOD en Unit C = Navy EOD Unit A = Army EOD, Unit B = Air Force EOD en Unit C = Navy EODOld clients = Defense Staff & Ministry of Interior & Kingdom Relations

  17. EOD usefulness versus other case studies

  18. Relationships between facilitator and other aspects (Only) significant relationship (at .10) between facilitator and expectation criterion validity

  19. Relationships between construct validity and other aspects (Only) significant relationship (at 0.05) between construct validity and expectation criterion validity

  20. Implication: further research seems useful • Technique improvement involving different theoretical perspectives • Application with facilitator having brand knowledge • More conclusive, experimental design: versus other problem identification techniques as brainstorming • Application to brand teams and consumers.

More Related