The Role of Advertising in Brand Image Development
The role of advertising in brand image development
Introduction
The notion that there is no objective reality and that people trade in the realms of perception and image represents one of the most important tenets of human understanding. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of human relationships with business organizations, i.e. the domain of marketing. Indeed images at all levels of marketing have taken on an increased importance in recent times. Corporations have become obsessive about public perceptions of their activities while at the level of the product/brand there has been a “shift in attention away from the physical aspects and functional benefits of products to their symbolic associations, expressiveness” (Poiesz, 1989, p. 461). A variety of reasons for this increased emphasis on image in marketing can be suggested: qmarketing’s increasing cognizance of the behavioral aspects of consumer decision making; qaffluent society’s predilection with symbolic rather than purely functional aspects of products; qan increasing variety of relatively homogeneous products often involving high product complexity and confusing messages which increase consumer reliance on the image aspects of products; qthe fact that technological innovation, increasingly susceptible to rapid imitation, may no longer offer previous levels of sustainable competitive advantage (King, 1991; Parker, 1991; Wells, 1989).
The purpose of this article is to examine the role which advertising plays in developing brand image. It commences by examining the various levels of marketing imagery and focuses on those elements which the company controls in the image formation process. The concept of branding is reviewed as is the relationship which the brand forms with the consumer.
The two main schools of thought with regard to advertising effects are examined in terms of their effects on brand imagery.
Levels of marketing imagery
Businesses conjure up a multitude of
Introduction
The notion that there is no objective reality and that people trade in the realms of perception and image represents one of the most important tenets of human understanding. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of human relationships with business organizations, i.e. the domain of marketing. Indeed images at all levels of marketing have taken on an increased importance in recent times. Corporations have become obsessive about public perceptions of their activities while at the level of the product/brand there has been a “shift in attention away from the physical aspects and functional benefits of products to their symbolic associations, expressiveness” (Poiesz, 1989, p. 461). A variety of reasons for this increased emphasis on image in marketing can be suggested: qmarketing’s increasing cognizance of the behavioral aspects of consumer decision making; qaffluent society’s predilection with symbolic rather than purely functional aspects of products; qan increasing variety of relatively homogeneous products often involving high product complexity and confusing messages which increase consumer reliance on the image aspects of products; qthe fact that technological innovation, increasingly susceptible to rapid imitation, may no longer offer previous levels of sustainable competitive advantage (King, 1991; Parker, 1991; Wells, 1989).
The purpose of this article is to examine the role which advertising plays in developing brand image. It commences by examining the various levels of marketing imagery and focuses on those elements which the company controls in the image formation process. The concept of branding is reviewed as is the relationship which the brand forms with the consumer.
The two main schools of thought with regard to advertising effects are examined in terms of their effects on brand imagery.
Levels of marketing imagery
Businesses conjure up a multitude of
References: Aaker, D. and Morris, D. (1982), “Characteristics of TV commercials perceived as informative”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol Achenbaum, A. (1989), “How to breathe new life into brands”, Advertising Age, Vol. 60 No. 18, pp. 24-70. Barthes, R. (1964), Elements of Semiology, Cape, London. Barthes, R. (1983), The Fashion System, (translated by Ward, M. and Howard, R.), Hill and Wang, New York, NY. Belk, R.W. (1983), “Explanations for congruence between patron stereotypes and patron self- concepts”, Proceedings of the American Psychological Association Conference, American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Bernstein, D. (1985), Company Image and Reality, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, in association with the Advertising Association, Eastbourne. Broadbent, K. and Cooper, P. (1987), “Research is good for you”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol Brooks, J.M. and Davies, G.J. (1989), Positioning Strategy in Retailing, Chapman Publishing, London. Colley, R. (1961), Defining Goals for Measured Advertising Results, Association of National Advertisers, London. Cooper, P. (1989), “Comparison between the UK and US: the qualitative dimension”,Journal of the Marketing Research Society, Vol Crask, M.R. and Laskey, H.A. (1990), “A positioning-based decision model for selecting advertising messages”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol de Groot, G. (1980), The Persuaders Exposed, Associated Business Press, London, Doyle, P Durgee, J.F. (1988), “Understanding brand personality”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol Egan, C., Shipley, D. and Howard, P. (1992), “The importance of brand names in industrial markets”, in Baker, M.J Evans, L. (1973), The Communications Gap, Charles Knight & Co., London. Fahey, A. and Lafayette, J. (1991), “Coke goes Hollywood”, Advertising Age, September 9, pp Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), “The product and the brand”, Harvard Business Review Vol Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), “Corporate image, an integral part of strategy”, Sloan Management Review, Vol Grier, P. (1991), “The corporation as brand”, Chief Executive, Vol. 66, April, pp. 38-41. Gunther, E.E. (1959), “Evaluating corporate image measurement”, Proceedings of the ARF (Advertising Research Foundation) Conference, Advertising Research Foundation, Holbrook, M.B. and Grayson, M.W. (1986), “The semiology of cinematic consumption: symbolic consumer behavior in out of Africa”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol Ind, N. (1990), The Corporate Image, Kogan Page, London [pic][pic] recognized by Veblen (1899) in his Theory of the Leisure Class and termed conspicuous consumption works of art (Holbrook and Grayson, 1986) and fashion (Barthes, 1983), its widespread usage to interpret symbolic consumption in all aspects of consumer behavior is anticipated (Mick, 1986). Gardner and Levy (1955) suggested there was a need for a “greater awareness of the social and psychological nature of products” (p Levy (1959) captured the essence of symbolism when he suggested that “people buy things not only for what they can do, but also for what they motivational factor in consumer choice (Belk, 1983; Sirgy, 1982). Lannon and Cooper (1983) suggest that: Symbolism Source: Broadbent and Cooper (1987)