Brands as Structures and Social Constructs: Network Approach to Branding

Transcription

1 Brands as Structures and Social Constructs: Network Approach to Branding Lindblom, Jarno 1, University ofoulu, Oulu Abstract The purpose of this study is to apply the network approach to the study of brand management phenomenon in order to gain a more holistic and relativistic view of branding compared to the contemporary brand management discourse. In order to understand how brands are socially constructed we build a conceptual framework, which is based on the concept of brand equity and the neuvork approach. By understanding objective brand structures and subjective meanings of different actors in the company's business network marketers are able to manage their brands in more effective manner. 1. Introduction The importance of brands in the marketing theory may be justified from two angles. Firstly, during the 1980s companies in the US started to realize the financial value of brands. For example, in 1989 Philip Morris paid $12,9 billion for Kraft, six times its net asset value. "The vision has changed from one where only tangible assets had value to one where companies now believe that their most important asset is their brands, which are intangible and immaterial." (Kapferer 1998, 23) We claim that today every marketer agrees on the high-value of well-built brands. The reason why financial analysts, in the same way as consumers, prefer companies with strong brands is related to the lower risks of these brands. Secondly, consumer marketing has become more challenging in the 1990s, which has forced suppliers to find new ways to stand out from competitors. In other words, suppliers are facing slow growth, increasing consumer diversity, fierce competitive rivalry and growing retailer power in the marketplace. As the consumer market becomes more fragmented, the target customers are harder to reach. On a social level what one consumes expresses a life-style based and symbolic membership in a group i.e. by consuming people express their commitment to a certain social world. To consumers brands identify the source or maker of a product and allow consumers to assign responsibility as to which particular manufacturer should be held accountable. From the perspective of a company brand loyalty provides predictability and security of demand for the firm and creates barriers of entry that make it difficult for other firms to enter the market. Branding can be seen as a powerful means to secure competitive advantage in this increasingly difficult marketing era. Building brand equity and the management of brands is a challenging task for any company. There are numerous managerial books and articles written on how brand assets are created and then turned into brand equity i.e. how a strong brand identity is created and coordinated across organizational units, media and markets. These "general branding principles" include market analysis, segmentation, positioning and execution ' Contact: Tel: , Address: Pitkansillanranta 1 I A 6, Helsinki, Finland. jamo.lmdblonxc/ valio.ti in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings oj The 15th Annual IMP Conference, Page 1 ol 14

2 -. vi'va of marketing plans based on traditional 4-Ps (e.g Randall 1997). The aim of traditional branding is to generate market transactions and to increase competitive advantage \ more holistic approach to branding is offered b\ the concept of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC), which is based on the fact that everything a company does, and sometimes what it doesn't do, sends a message (e.g. Duncan and Moriarty 1997). IMC focuses on managing relationships with all stakeholders and maintaining strategic consistency in brand messages. From a more relational perspective, traditional branding methods or even IMC seem to be mainly concerned about managing "objective structures" such as pricing or controlling the communication process in sellerstakeholder relationships. The underlying assumption in managing "objective structures" is based on scientific realism. However, we argue that fundamentally brands are "social constructs" in the minds of different actors in a company's business network. By "social constructs" we refer to more or less subjective meanings constructed in social interaction. Thus, brands should be seen as social constructs, not just in consumer's mind but also in the company's business network. Brands are always subject to the relevant business context and they evolve through time. The purpose of this study is to apply the network approach to the study of brand management phenomenon in order to gain a more holistic and relativistic \ie\\ of branding compared to the contemporary brand management discourse In order to understand how brands are socially constructed we build a conceptual framework, which is based on the concept of brand equity and the network approach. Hopefully, by applying the framework empirically one is able to describe and analyze brand management better in a wider business context. 2. Brand Management and Structures The major research tradition within consumer marketing has been based on the marketing-mix concept. A key assumption in the marketing-mix approach is the existence of functioning markets with enough players to lead to competition between independent actors (Moller and Wilson 1995, 6). According to Arnold (1992, 17) "marketing is the management process responsible for creating and delivering customer satisfaction. " From the seller's perspective, branding means the management of an optimal marketing mix for a product and/or service in order to guarantee superior customer satisfaction. Therefore, traditional branding is often considered synonymous with marketing. In this chapter the characteristics of brands and the concept of brand equity are analyzed from the managerial perspective. 2.1 Characteristics of brands There is a range of definitions for the term brand varying from very compact and simplified ones to all-embracing ones. Kotler (1991) has defined brand simply as "a name, term, svmbol or design, or a combination of them ". Another researcher has stated that "a brand, then, has an existence separate from an actual product or service: it has a life of its own. " (Randall 1997, 4) Some researchers wish to use lively metaphors such as "a brand is a living memory" or "a brand is a genetic programme" (Kapferer 1998, 53). One could list numerous definitions of brands and they would all be "correct" depending on the company's managerial focus. in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference, Page 2 of 14

3 Consumers see brands as risk and search cost reducers, signals of quality and symbolic devices. From the company's perspective brands are means of legally protecting unique features and endowing products with unique associations. To companies brands also serve as sources of competitive advantage and financial returns. There is also a range of types and levels of brands. For example, brands mu\ be divided into different categories depending on the target market and the type of product service a supplier offers. It is possible to distinguish four types of brands: (1) Consumer goods, (2) Consumer services, (3) Industrial goods, and (4) Industrial services. In Figure 1 the types of brands are analyzed from four angles: the dominating type of exchange, communication strategy, market characteristics and customer involvement. Dominating type of exchange Transactional exchange Relational exchange Mass media Atomistic markets Communication strategy Market characteristics Person-to-person One buyer and one seller Low Customer involvement High Figure 1 A typology of brands Consumer brands refer to products or services that are aimed at consumers. Consumer goods vary from commodities to complex high-tech products. The dominating type of exchange is normally transactional and consumer involvement is low. The communication strategy is usually based on the use of mass media in order to reach as many consumers in the selected target group as possible (e.g. Keller 1998). Industrial brands are targeted at industrial customers. For example, in the paper business paper sheet brands are important for printing houses even though consumers who bu\ papers or books do not know them. Usually the amount of paper bought by a print house is high and therefore the customer involvement is high and long-term business relationships are needed for successful purchases. in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.)< Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference. Page 3 of 14

4 Service brands are related to services the supplier sells. Service brands may be aimed at consumers or industrial (B-to-B) customers. Services are produced and consumed during "the moments of truth" (Gronroos 1990). The type of exchange in the case of service brands is more relational due to the nature of services because customers must be more involved in the process of producing and consuming services. Thus, the communication strategy is more interpersonal. This typology is useful when classifying customer relationships by the dominating mode of exchange but it disregards the importance of other business relationships (e.g. seller-retailer relationship) and the need for managing them. Another and partly overlapping typology of brands is to classify brands depending on whether they are stand alone brands (e.g. Fairy, Crest, Pampers), line brands (e.g. L'Oreal StudioLine), or corporate brands (e.g. IBM, Sony) etc. (e.g. Raiulall ). Naturally, the decision made on the brand type must be consistent \\ith the customer perceptions. Lately there has been a move from individual line branding to corporate branding due to a shift in corporate behavior to emphasizing value through employees' involvement in relationship building (de Chernatony 1999, 159) The aim of this short analysis of brand characteristics was to illustrate that a typology of brands may be constructed to an extent but rather than studying brands based on the market characteristics or type of exchange one should have a holistic understanding of the branding process. To make branding even more complex the concept of brand equity is introduced in the next chapter. 2.2 Brand equity The brand marketing discourse has concentrated mainly on the management of "brand value" and "brand equity" (see e.g. Keller 1998; Aaker 1996; Randall 1997). Brand equity "is a set of assets (and liabilities) linked to a brand's name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm's customers" (Aaker 1996, 7). In other words, brand equity may be defined in terms of the marketing effects uniquely attributable to a brand. From the compan\\ perspective, benefits from brand equity include greater loyalt>, larger margins and inelastic consumer response to price increases (Keller 1998). The management of brand equity and corporate brands related to the term Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) seem to a "hot topic 11 in the brand marketing literature (see e.g. de Chernatony 1999; Duncan and Moriarty 1997). IMC suggests that everyone in the company is a part time marketer affecting the strength of a corporate brand (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). A corporate brand consists of the company's communication activities whether they are interactive or non-interactive. IMC emphasizes the management of stakeholder relationships as a key objective in building brand equity. In the following the main ideas of brand management are summarized. From the managerial perspective, the central concept of brand marketing, the management of brand equity, is based on three dimensions: (1) creating and sustaining brand identity, (2) strengthening strategic focus, and (3) ensuring customer-orientation by delivering value, (cf. "double vortex" brand model by de Chernatony and DaH'Olmo Riley 1998) in \lcloughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (ech.). Proceeding oj The IS'1' \nnunl IMP ( onjerciu\. I imersit) ( ollege, Dublin 1999 Page 4 ot 14

5 (1) Creating and sustaining brand identity - making promises Brand identity holds that brand is much more than just a product. "Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain. These associations represent what the brand stands for and imply a promise to customers from the organization members. " (Aaker 1996, 68) Brands "charge" products with meaning, and a brand identity is the structure of that meaning. "A brand is a both a prism and magnifying glass through which products can be decoded. " (Kapferer 1998, 56) Functional capabilities are only a part of a brand identity. Brands can also serve as symbolic devices, allowing consumers to project their own self-images. Kapferer's (1998, ) "identity prism" consists of physique (i.e. physical product qualities), personality (i.e. brand character is built up through communication), culture, relationship, reflection (i.e. target customer's outward mirror), and self-image (i.e. target customer's own internal mirror). in creating and sustaining brand identity it is a question of defining the identity, positioning it in the market, implementing it by (inter)active communication and tracking the results (Aaker 1996). Brand-customer relationships play an important role in a brand building process. It has been stated that "branding provides a platform for a continuing stream of transactions." (Leventhal 1996, 18) According to Aaker (1996), brand-customer relationships evolve, when a brand has a strong identity and value proposition. The brand-customer relationship may be seen as a metaphor ol a person who has a personality and interpersonal relationship^ with customers. Brand managers should "own" the consumer relationship in the most efficient way. The main thesis of Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) is to control the communication with all stakeholders and ensure that everyone in the company knows the brand identity and is committed to delivering it to stakeholders (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). Some suggest that brand identity is mainly result of corporate culture and only managing culture marketers are able to build brands (de Chernatony 1999). (2) Strengthening strategic focus - making everyone to work for the promises The strategic focus means long-term vision. Even though brand value is intangible it is seen as an essential part of the company's financial value. Sometimes the estimated brand value may exceed the value of the company's tangible assets. The strategic emphasis requires that the whole organization from top to down must be committed and support its brands. When brands are supported by the top management more resources are likely to be allocated to brand management. By seeing branding as a strategic process the managerial perspective becomes wider and marketing is more than a separate function. Strategic focus is strengthened through long-term planning and through the control of the company's core assets. (3) Ensuring customer-orientation - delivering promises Nowadays customer-orientation is essential for all firms operating in any market. Brand-related customer-orientation aims at ensuring brand loyalty, which may only be achieved by providing superior consumer value. Customer orientation also requires a deep understanding of the customer. "A brand is something that resides in the minds of consumers. A brand is a perceptual entity, rooted in reality, but also reflecting the perceptions and perhaps even the idiosyncrasies of consumers. " (Keller 1998, 7) in McLoughlin, Da mien, and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference, Page 5 of 14

6 According to the customer-orientation thesis, "the moments of truth" and brandcustomer relationships should be managed in the most efficient way "The test must surely lie, not in the views oj individual commentators, but in the collective opinion o) the target customers and consumers. If they can perceive that a product has a unique identity that differentiates it from other similar products, and thev can describe it and the unique set oj benefits it offers, (hen n is a brand ' (Kandall 1 W, 5) 1 n.miiin^ customer-orientation requires segmenting markets, positioning brands, and meaminng brand loyalty and customer satisfaction regularly. 2.3 Brands as structures Even though brand-customer relationships are emphasized in the brand literature the contemporary brand marketing seems to have transactional focus in trying to manage "objective brand structures". "Objective brand structure" refers to a formal brand reality, which consists of attributes and values that can be measured and analyzed objectively. Objective brand structures are summarized in Table 11. The process of managing brand equity treats customers and other stakeholders as if they were objects that can be approximated and managed on a stimulus-response basis. Dimensions of brand equity Objective structures Indicators Brand identity name, logo, product attributes, Awareness, image, product quality, visual imagery, perceived value, personality, communication brand associations Strategic focus strategy, long-term planning, Balance sheet, stock investments, organization price, business forecasts Customer-orientation customer needs and wants, Sales volume, price, segmentation, positioning, market share, customer and stakeholder customer satisfaction profiles, relationship portfolios and loyalty (e.g. repeat purchases) Table 1 Brand equity analyzed in terms of objective structures and indicators As presented in Table 1, companies build brands through choosing and mixing different elements of objective structures and measuring them with mainly quantitative methods. A holistic view on branding means that brands should be seen continuously changing and involving the whole company in the brand building process. Even though a company is concentrated on managing consumer brands it should understand the context in which it operates. An essential part of context is its business network. The next chapter deals with brands seen from the network approach. 3. Business Networks and Brands in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference, Page 6 of 14

7 The traditional view of marketing as a specialist function has been increasingly questioned as a proper basis for strategic and operational marketing planning. The old marketing concept based on the marketing-mix and consumer marketing-related theories has increasingly been perceived as unrealistic in real-life interorganizational business settings (Turnbull et al. 1996). Consequently, notion of networks has recently gained increased attention in interorganizational research, also outside the area of marketing (see Araujo and Easton 1996). According to the new theory of marketing, in the industrial network approach exchange relationships between organizations are emphasized from a metatheoretical perspective as the core phenomenon of marketing theory. (Moller and Wilson, 1995, 6) The network approach argues that industrial markets should be seen as networks. It is concerned with understanding the totality of relationships in an industrial system. The approach eschews atomistic markets and adopts relationships (haston, 1992). The main objectives of the network approach are to provide understanding and descriptions of industrial markets as a complex network of organizational relationships and to sensitize management to "network thinking" (Moller, 1992, 10). The perspective adopted by the network approach to business organizations - the primary actors in industrial networks - is often characterized as holistic and interfunctional, taking into account the relevant context of an organization in a network (e.g. Hakansson and Snehota 1995, 1989, Mattsson 1996, 1985). Despite the origins of the network approach in industrial marketing research, the tradition offers a much broader viewpoint to interorganizational exchange than the traditional, outward-oriented marketing perspective. The network approach merges at least organizing/management and marketing/purchasing into a synthesizing conceptualization that regards the network of an organization as the primary unit of analysis instead of concentrating on organizational functions, single organizations, or even interorganizational dyads (Moller 1994). The linkage between branding and the network approach is somewhat complicated to establish due to the different underlying assumptions of reality in both approaches. Branding as a part of marketing management school is rooted in scientific realism (see Moller 1992) whereas the network approach is metatheoreticall} guided b\ scientific relativism (e.g. Tikkanen 1996). Business networks may be described and analyzed from different angles within the network approach. The analytic dimensions introduced here are relationships, structures, processes and the network model. The objective is to choose the most suitable elements for the conceptual framework presented in the next chapter. 3.1 Networks as relationships, Structures and Processes Networks as relationships One approach to industrial networks is to regard them as aggregations of relationships. (Forsgren and Johanson eds., 1992, 7) The relationships are rather long-term in nature and comprise the processes of adjusting products, production and routines. Interactions represent the here and now of interfirm behavior and comprise exchange and adaptation processes. Relationships can be presented as comprising four elements: mutual orientation, dependence, bonds and investments. (Johanson and Mattsson, 1987, 34-48) in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.)< Proceedings of The 15th Annual IVtP Conference. Page 7 ot 14

8 One of the preconditions for the existence of an interorganizational relationship is \\hat has been termed mutual orientation. This means that the organizations are prepared to interact with each other and expect each other to do so. Cooperation is required and this depends on the relationships between the organizations" objectives. Dependence is the second element which has been used to describe network relationships. In some senses it may be regarded as the price an organization may have to pay for the benefits that a relationship offers. Dependence is partly a matter of choice and partly a matter of circumstances. Problems of power and control are closely related to the concept of dependence. The bonds between the organizations engaged in a relationship constitute the third element of a relationship. Organizations are bonded together and are not usually completely free to dissolve these bonds at will. (Easton, 1992, 8-11) Bonds may be considered as having various economic, social, technical, logistical, administrative, informational, legal and time based dimensions. Different types of bonds are not independent of each other. Together they form a system of different bonds where some specific type of bonds may be dominant. The dominant types of bonds tend to be economic or social and act as prerequisites to other types of bonds. (Mattsson, 1985) The fourth element of relationships is investment. In this context, investments are often referred to as processes in which resources are committed in order to create, build or acquire assets, which can be used in the future. (Easton, 1992, 13-14) It has been argued that the bonds are outcomes resulting from an exchange relationship. The glue that holds a relationship together and allows it to develop is the constructs, which include e.g. social bonds, structural bonds, commitment, trust, cooperation, performance satisfaction, and shared technology. (Wilson and Moller, 1995, 55-58) The social bonds hold the relationship together in the initial stages as more permanent structural bonds develop that strengthen the relationship. As relationships become strategic decisions they are formed under time pressure, which makes it difficult to have them evolve in a natural way. Because of that, each construct needs to be considered in every stage of a relationship building process. Even though the constructs are not the focus of this study one should bear in mind that they should be taken into account when exchange relationships are studied. Networks as Structures The structure of an industrial network originates from interdependence between organizations in the whole industrial system. The greater the interdependence the clearer the structure of the network is and the more important it is in determining the behavior of individual organizations. Structure in this context uses individual organizations or firms as its basic elements. A basic assumption of the industrial network approach is that networks always are very heterogeneous in nature. This heterogeneity is easy to describe but difficult to model. One possible way to characterize the structure of a network is by the division of work among the organizations in a network. In structural analyses of industrial networks, it is important to state how the boundaries of the network are defined. Larger industrial networks are often subdivided to smaller nets in order to facilitate the analysis. It should, however, always be recognized that all boundaries established by researchers are arbitrary. (Easton, 1992, 16-19) in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference, Page 8 of 14

9 Networks as processes Change is a central factor in all industrial networks. The network relationships can only be understood in dynamic terms. Network processes are dominated b> the distribution of power and interest structures. Many relationships are asymmetrical v\ ith respect to power. The two dialectical processes in networks are competition and cooperation. The network approach usually emphasizes cooperation, complementarit) and coordination because the existence of strong bonding demonstrates a high le\el of cooperation (Easton, 1992,21-25) It should be kept in mind that these three dimensions are more or less overlapping and interconnected e.g. a network structure does not exist if there are no relationships between companies. Thus, a holistic view is required when studying industrial networks. 3.2 Network Model The network approach differs considerably from the marketing-mix model, because it emphasizes dynamic, individual, and interconnected exchange relationships within systems that contain interdependencies of both a complementary and a substitutive nature. According to Hakansson (1987), when describing industrial networks one should concentrate on describing activities and chains of activities (cf. activity links) that are logically bound together in a network ( Figure 2). He sees a network as never balanced, never optimal and different for all its members (Hakansson and Johanson, 1992) ^^ Actors control resources Actors have a certain knowledge of resources. RESOURCES heterogeneous human and physical dependent on each other ACTORS at different levels aim to increase control of the network NETWORK Actors perform activities Actors have a certain knowledge of activities. \ ACTIVITIES - transformation activities - transaction activities - activity cycles - transaction chains Activities link resources to each other. Activities change or exchange resources through use of other resources. Figure 2 Network model (Hakansson and Johanson, 1992, 17) The network model's basic classes of variables are actors, activities, and resources (so called ARA-model). These variables are related to each other in the overall structure of networks. Actors are defined as those who perform activities and/or control resources. in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference. Page 9 of 14

10 In activities actors use certain resources to change other resources in various ways. Resources are means used by actors when they perform activities. A network of actors, a network of activities and a network of resources are related to each other. In conclusion it may be stated that the network approach offers a strong conceptual "arsenal" for studying brands from a relativistic perspective. 3.3 Brands as Social Constructs Brands may be described as social constructs from the network perspective, which holds that subjective meaning of a brand is related to actors and their relationships in a business context. A subjective meaning of an actor is affected by the net\\ork position and by the cooperation between different actors. The network approach has a totallv different logic when studying brands. The earlier presented objective structures become less important and the network characteristics start to play more important role in the building of a brand. The network approach is subjective but simultaneous!) holistic because every actor experiences a brand from a subjective viewpoint even though a brand is just a small part in the existence of an actor. In consumer goods business it is important to make a difference between consumer relationships and business relationships. Because of the fact that consumer brands are often targeted at millions of consumers it is impossible to develop close exchange relationships with them. Therefore, when studying brands from the network perspective we focus on analyzing a company's business network and brand meaning within that network. The idea of socially constructed brands sets great challenges for brand management, because the company should be able to analyze every actor's socially constructed brand reality and then draw implications from them to the building of brands. 4. Brand-Related Network and Social Construction of Brands In this chapter a conceptual framework for describing and analyzing brands from the relational perspective is built by combining the features of brand marketing and the network approach. The conceptual framework is divided into three interconnected dimensions: content, context and process (cf. Pettigrew 19SS). ( onteni describes the structure of brand reality from the managerial perspective. Context refers to a brandrelated network and relationships between different actors within the network. Managerial and social processes link content and context together. Content as Objective Brand Structures Brands are manifested in objective structures. In order to survive brands must be translated to new actors who have not been involved in the brand building process. From the company's perspective, objective brand structures ensure that brand equity is communicated, managed and coordinated consistently. Objective brand structures are then targeted at consumers and other stakeholders and they aim at building competitive advantage. Content may be described as the objective structure of brand reality. By describing and analyzing the content of a brand the company is able to concentrate on the management of critical parts of the brand equity. in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference. Pagt 10 ol 14

11 However, the three interconnected elements of brand equity (brand identity strategic locus and customer orientation) are constructed in a brand-related ncluork it i* impossible to consider them separately from the relevant business context. Context as Networks Context is "the here and now". It includes a network of actors related to a brand (i.e. a brand related network) and their subjective views of the brand. We suggest that the company's relevant business context should be analyzed by applying the concepts of the network approach in order to gain a more holistic view of brand building phenomenon. The social constructs in a business network are presented in Table 2. From the network perspective, the management of brands should start by describing the relevant business network and its boundaries, analyzing actors, activities and resources in order to determine which actors are critical for the success of the brand. Furthermore, social processes and subjective meanings within the network should be analyzed. After that marketers would be able to define the strength of brand equity and the role of the brand in the business context. Network dimensions Structures Relationships Processes Social constructs networks, boundaries, actors, activities and resources mutual orientation, dependence, bonds and investments distribution of power, cooperation, complementarity, competition Table 2 Network dimensions analyzed in terms of social constructs Processes as Links Between Structures and Social Constructs The third dimension, processes, is a dynamic force between actors and structures. Seen from the network perspective brands are in relation to the context through transactional and relational exchange. Processes include all interactive and non-interactive activities in the network. These three elements form a holistic framework for describing and analyzing brand equity (see Figure 3). The content is the objective structure of brand equity, which is constructed \\ithin the business context through exchange processes. in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference, Page 11 of 14

12 CONTENT t Socially constructed brand reality CONTEXT <4 + PROCESSES Figure 3 A conceptual framework for analyzing brand equity in a business network 5 Conclusions Brands are complex to be defined explicitly. Seen from purely transactional perspective, the management of brand equity can be divided into three elements: creating and sustaining brand identity, strengthening strategic focus, and ensuring customerorientation. Brand identity results from active communication and brand-customer relationship management. Strengthening strategic focus means long-term perspective. Customer-orientation is ensured by careful market analysis, segmentation and positioning aiming at superior customer value. All three brand equity elements consist of "objective brand structures", which are formal simplifications of branding phenomenon. The process of managing brand equity treats customers and other stakeholders as if they were objects that can be approximated and managed on a stimulus-response basis. Therefore, it becomes justified to approach branding from a more relativistic viewpoint by applying the concepts of the network approach to the analysis of brand cquit\ Brands may be described as social constructs from the network perspective, which holds that subjective meaning of a brand is related to actors and their relationships in a business context. The network approach has a totally different logic compared to the traditional brand management. It suggests that the network and relationship characteristics play more important role in the building of a brand than managing and controlling communication for instance. The conceptual framework consisting of three interconnected dimensions (content, context and processes) combines the management of objective brand structures and relationships in a brand related network through exchange processes. The result from applying the conceptual framework would be more comprehensive "thick descriptions" of the main elements of brand equity. In conclusion, it may be argued that brands consist of objective structures and social constructs and by applying the network approach to the study of brand management phenomenon it is possible to gain a more holistic and relativistic view of branding compared to the contemporary brand management discourse. References Aaker, D.A. (1996) Building Strong Brands. The Free Press: New York. Araujo, L. - Easton, G. (1996) Networks in Socioeconomic Systems: \ Critical Review, in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.). Proceedings oj The 15th Annual IMP Conference. Page 12 ol 14

13 Networks in Marketing, ed. by D. lacobucci, pp Sage, Thousand Oaks. Arnold, D. (1992) The Handbook of Brand Management. Pitman Publishing: London, de Chernatony, L. - Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1998) Modelling the Components of the Brand. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 32, No. 11/12, pp de Chernatony, L. (1999) Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and Brand Reputation. Journal of Marketing Management. Vol. 15,pp.l Duncan, T. - Moriarty, S. (1997) Driving Brand Value. Using Integrated Marketing to Manage Profitable Stakeholder Relationships. MCGraw-Hill. Easton, G. (1992) Industrial Networks: A Review Industrial \envorks A \vu l'ic\\ o/ Reality, ed. by Axelsson, B. - Easton, G. pp Forsgren, M. - Johanson, J. eds. (1992) Managing Networks in International Business Gordon and Breach, Philadelphia. Gronroos, C (1990) Nyt Kilpaillaan Palveluilla. [Service Management and Marketing. Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition.] Ekonomia-sarja. Weilin+Goos. Hakansson, H. - Johanson, J. (1992) A Model of Industrial Networks. Industrial Networks. A New View of Reality, ed. by Axelsson, B. - Easton, G. pp Hakansson, H. - Snehota, I. eds. (1995) Developing Relationships in Business Networks. Routledge, London. Hakansson, H. - Snehota, I. (1989) No Business is an Island: the Network Concept of Business Strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp Hakansson, H. (1987) Introduction. Industrial Technological Development. A Network Approach, ed. by Hakansson, H., pp Johanson, J. - Mattsson, L.-G. (1987) Interorganizational Relations in Industrial Systems: A Network Approach Compared with a Transaction Cost Approach. International Studies of Management Organization. Vol. 17, No. 1, pp Kapferer, J.-N. (1998) Strategic Brand Management. Creating, Sustaining Brand Ec/uitv Long Term. Second edition. Kogan Page Limited. Keller, K.L. (1998) Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Prentice-Hall Inc. Kotler, P. (1991) Marketing Management. 7th edition. Prentice Hall. Leventhal, R.C. (1996) Branding Strategy. Business Horizons. September-October, pp in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference. Page 13 of 14

14 Mattsson, L.-G. (1996) Relationship Marketing and the Markets-as-Networks Approach A Comparative Analysis of Two Evoking Research 1 raditions. Paper presented at the 4th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing. Helsinki, September Mattsson, L.-G. (1985) An Application of a Network Approach to Marketing: Defending and Changing Market Positions. Changing the Course of Marketing. Alternative Paradigms for Widening Marketing Theory, ed. by Dholakia, D. - Arndt, J., pp , JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut. Moller, K. - Wilson, D.T (1995) Introduction: Interaction and Networks in Perspective. Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective, ed. by Moller, K. - Wilson D.T., pp Moller, K. E. (1994) Interorganizational Marketing Exchange. Metatheoretical Analysis of Current Research Approaches, Research Traditions in Marketing, ed. by G. Laurent - G. L. Lilien B. Pras, pp Kluwer, Boston. Moller, K. (1992) Research Traditions in Marketing: Theoretical Notes. Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration. Working Paper. VV-23 Pettigrew, A. ed. (1988) The Management of Strategic Change Basil Blacks ell Ltd. Randall, G. (1997) A Practical Guide to Branding. Planning, Organizing and Strategy. Kogan Page Limited. Tikkanen, H. (1996) The Network Approach in Industrial Marketing Research, Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Series D-2: Turnbull, P. - Ford, D. - Cunningham, M. (1996) Interaction, Relationships and Networks in Business Markets: An Evolving Perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3/4, pp Wilson, D.T, - Moller, K. (1995) Dynamics of Relationship Development. Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective, ed. by Moller, K. - Wilson D.T. pp i/i McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference, Page 14 of 14