Validity of the branding constellation technique

1. Validity of the branding constellation technique EMAC, 35th, Athens, May 24, 18.25 – 18.45 Product and Brand Management

2. Presentation: sustainable marketing leadership by enhancing understanding of branding problems • Knowledge gap in branding research • Branding constellation technique • Dissertation aim / EMAC paper aim • Findings • Discussion and implications

3. Focus on four in scientific knowledge ‘gaps’ in branding research • Systematic problem identification (Ackoff, 1978; Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Chapman, 1989; Butler, 1995; Gibson, 1998) • Soft, ill-structured problems (Chapman, 1989; Checkland & Scholes, 2005; Hackley, 1999; Zikmund, 2003; Zaltman) • Effects of decisions (Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Davis & Moe, 1997; Durgee, O’Connor & Veryzer, 1999; Desai, 2002) • Mind of the manager (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Zaltman, Blichfeldt, 2005; Jones, 2005, Nijssen & Agustin, 2005)

4. Branding constellation technique Application of systems constellation technique to identify branding problems • Roles: client, facilitator, observers (stand-ins/audience) • Main phases: interview, projection, modification, vision

5. Interview: problem, decison and constructs

6. 1st Part projection phase: stand-ins

7. 2nd Part projection phase: positioning

8. 3rd Part projection phase: questioning

9. Final partprojection phase: questioning

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

11. Research project methodology • Multiple case study design: 32 branding problems • Four settings: marketing expert (7), branders-only (9), marketing-lay (8), another facilitator (8) • Three open marketing expert conferences in 2002 (3), 2003 (2), 2004 (2): 25-35 experts • Questionnaires: directly after the constellation, by e-mail the day after, and spontaneously during project

12. Explorative EMAC 2006 paper aim • How valid • do marketing experts (2 users and 34 observers) • judge the two 2004 forum branding constellations • to identify branding problems?

13. Explorative EMAC paper 2006 questions • Do marketing experts (users and observers) think the constellations clarified branding problems? • Did users and observers generate good ideas on how to tackle the branding problems in each phase? • Do the users and observers think that branding constellations enhance brand systems thinking?

14. Findings (eq): problem clarification to audience in magazine and training company constellation

15. Findings (dq): audience ideas per phase on magazine and training company problem

16. Findings (dq): stand-in ideas per phase on magazine and training company problem

17. Findings (eq): observers’ dimension scores on enhanced brand systems thinking

18. Limitations • Facilitator’s ignorance of brand knowledge • Marketing experts ‘believed’ in subconscious knowledge processing.

19. Discussion on findings • Branding problems were clarified, ideas generated, and brand systems thinking enhanced • Both 2004 users applied spontaneously, one for the second time, and 22 of the 34 observers too • No differences between problem contents, and settings • First validation step (Shocker & Zaltman, 1977; Sykes, 1991) • Brand managers as spider (fly) in a web (Panigyrakis & Veloutsou, 2000; Bergstrom a. o. 2002; Mitchell, 2002)

20. Brand application logic • Use of metaphors (Arndt, 1985; Callingham & Baker, 2001; Morgan; Lakoff & Johnson; Zaltman; O’Malley & Patterson, 2005) • Anthropomorphic approach, brand-as-a-person (Seguela, 1982; Aaker J.; Tan Tsu Wee, 2004; Freling & Lukas, 2005) • Brand positioning / mapping (Kotler, Aaker, Keller) • Brand systems thinking (Mintzberg, 1998; Keller, 2002; Aaker, 2004; Franzen & Van den Berg, 2003;Van der Vorst, 2004)

21. Implication: further research seems useful • Technique standardization, involving creative theorists, metaphor theorists, (Merleau-Ponty) phenomenologists, and sociometrists • Application with facilitator having brand knowledge • More conclusive, experimental design: versus brainstorming, lateral thinking, synectics, or ZMET • Application to brand teams and consumers

22. Training company directors’ projectiondrawing 1 Legend stand-ins for constructs: B: Brand name D: Director (brander) H: High board

23. Training company director’sprojection drawing 2 Legend stand-ins for constructs: B: Brand name D: Director (client) H: High board M1: Market group 1 (BU trainers) M2: Market group 2 (BU project workers) M3: Market group 3 (BU advisors)

24. Magazine editor’s projection drawing Legend stand-ins for constructs: C: Current readers D: Directors E: Editorial office (client) M: 40 year-old existing Magazine R: Reformed magazine S: Science-oriented articles P: Popular articles

25. Telephone company marketer drawing 1 Legend stand-ins for constructs: C: 16 million customers K: KPN Telecom M: KPN Mobile (client)

26. Telephone company marketer’s drawing 2 Legend stand-ins for constructs: C: 16 million customers K: KPN Telecom M: KPN Mobile (client) Ben: Ben (competitor 1) V: Vodafone (competitor 2) D: Other competitors

27. Direct questionnaire • Differentiation between ‘users’ (branders) and ‘observers’ and ‘stand-ins’ (marketing experts) • 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.

28. E-mail questionnaire E.g. 6 dimensions on enhanced brand systems thinking: • More awareness of branding reality • New perspective on brand construct relationships • More awareness of implicit brand knowledge • Clearer brand vision • More profound experience of the brand as a system • Enhanced scenario thinking.