Validity of the branding constellation technique

EMAC, 35th, Athens, May 24, 18.25 – 18.45Product and Brand Management

Presentation: sustainable marketing leadership by enhancing understanding of branding problems

1. Knowledge gap in branding research

2. Branding constellation technique

3. Dissertation aim / EMAC paper aim

4. Findings

5. Discussion and implications

Focus on four in scientific knowledge ‘gaps’ in branding research

1. Systematic problem identification (Ackoff, 1978; Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Chapman, 1989; Butler, 1995; Gibson, 1998)

2. Soft, ill-structured problems (Chapman, 1989; Checkland & Scholes, 2005; Hackley, 1999; Zikmund, 2003; Zaltman)

3. Effects of decisions (Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Davis & Moe, 1997; Durgee, O’Connor & Veryzer, 1999; Desai, 2002)

4. Mind of the manager (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Zaltman, Blichfeldt, 2005; Jones, 2005, Nijssen & Agustin, 2005)

Branding constellation technique

Application of systems constellation technique

to identify branding problems

1. Roles: client, facilitator, observers (stand-ins/audience)

2. Main phases: interview, projection, modification, vision

Interview: problem, decison and constructs

1st Part projection phase: stand-ins

2nd Part projection phase: positioning

3rd Part projection phase: questioning

Final part projection phase: questioning

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?

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

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?

Explorative EMAC paper 2006 questions

1. Do marketing experts (users and observers) think the constellations clarified branding problems?

2. Did users and observers generate good ideas on how to tackle the branding problems in each phase?

3. Do the users and observers think that branding constellations enhance brand systems thinking?

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

Problem clarification ClarifiedLimited clarified

Not clarified

Magazine (N=25) 92 % (23) 4 % (1) 4 % (1)

Training company (N=26) 62 % (16) 15 % (4) 23 % (6)

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

Role Audience (N=25, N=26)

Phase/ Quality Good Limited No Idea No Answer

Interview 72 % (18) 69 % (18)

16 % (4) 23 % (6)

12 % (3)4 % (1)

- 4 % (1)

Projection 72 % (18) 50 % (13)

4 % (1) 4 % (1)

20 % (5) 38 % (10)

4 % (1) 8 % (2)

Modification 76 % (19) 85 % (22)

12 % (3) 4 % (1)

4 % (1) 8 % (2)

8 % (2) 4 % (1)

Vision 100 % (25) 92 % (24)

- -

- 8 % (2)

- -

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

Roles Stand-ins (N=9)

Phase / Quality Good Limited No idea

Interview n. a. n. a. n. a.

Projection 78 % (7) 50 % (4)

- -

22 % (2) 50 % (4)

Modification 89 % (8) 75 % (6)

- 11 % (1) 25 % (2)

Vision 100 % (9) 100 % (8)

- -

- -

n. a. = not available as not asked

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

Enhanced brand systems thinking

Mean (N=34) Standard dev.

1. Brand construct relationships 8.2 0.9

2. Brand knowledge awareness 8.2 1.1

3. Experiencing brand system 8.1 1.2

4. Brand reality awareness 7.7 1.3

5. Brand vision 7.3 1.4

6. Scenario thinking 6.8 2.1

Limitations

1. Facilitator’s ignorance of brand knowledge

2. Marketing experts ‘believed’ in subconscious knowledge processing.

Discussion on findings

1. Branding problems were clarified, ideas generated, and brand systems thinking enhanced

2. Both 2004 users applied spontaneously, one for the second time, and 22 of the 34 observers too

3. No differences between problem contents, and settings

4. First validation step (Shocker & Zaltman, 1977; Sykes, 1991)

5. Brand managers as spider (fly) in a web (Panigyrakis & Veloutsou, 2000; Bergstrom a. o. 2002; Mitchell, 2002)

Brand application logic

1. Use of metaphors (Arndt, 1985; Callingham & Baker, 2001; Morgan; Lakoff & Johnson; Zaltman; O’Malley & Patterson, 2005)

2. Anthropomorphic approach, brand-as-a-person (Seguela, 1982; Aaker J.; Tan Tsu Wee, 2004; Freling & Lukas, 2005 )

3. Brand positioning / mapping (Kotler, Aaker, Keller)

4. Brand systems thinking (Mintzberg, 1998; Keller, 2002; Aaker,

2004; Franzen & Van den Berg, 2003; Van der Vorst, 2004)

Implication: further research seems useful

1. Technique standardization, involving creative theorists, metaphor theorists, (Merleau-Ponty) phenomenologists, and sociometrists

2. Application with facilitator having brand knowledge

3. More conclusive, experimental design: versus brainstorming, lateral thinking, synectics, or ZMET

4. Application to brand teams and consumers

Training company directors’ projection drawing 1

Legend stand-ins for constructs:

B: Brand name

D: Director (brander)

H: High board

Training company director’s projection 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)

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

Telephone company marketer drawing 1

Legend stand-ins for constructs:

C: 16 million customers

K: KPN Telecom

M: KPN Mobile (client)

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

Direct questionnaire

1. Differentiation between ‘users’ (branders) and ‘observers’ and ‘stand-ins’ (marketing experts)

2. Three clarification categories in content analysis on the level of branding problem clarification: Clarified, Limited Clarified, and Not Clarified

3. Four quality categories in ideation content analysis: Good Ideas (new, actionable, leverage), Limited Ideas (rather vague), No Ideas, and No Answer.

E-mail questionnaire

E.g. 6 dimensions on enhanced brand systems thinking:

1. More awareness of branding reality

2. New perspective on brand construct relationships

3. More awareness of implicit brand knowledge

4. Clearer brand vision

5. More profound experience of the brand as a system

6. Enhanced scenario thinking.