آغازگر در استراتژی برند سازی B2B با عملی خوان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|23840||2012||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 65, Issue 5, May 2012, Pages 666–675
This primer examines the empirical evidence about business-to-business (B2B) brands and its implications for brand strategy. Some of world's most valuable brands are predominantly B2B in nature, however brand marketing texts typically assume a consumer branding (B2C) perspective. The question arises as to whether or not branding is important in B2B marketing. This primer considers the following question. How do B2B brands create and deliver value for firms in inter-organizational transactions? The paper begins by examining the relevance of current theoretical frameworks of branding to B2B value creation. Next the study considers the brand value chain and the contribution of extant B2B research at its various stages. The paper concludes by examining areas for future research in B2B branding and presents a reader practicum.
Many entries in the Interbrand (2010) Best Global Brands list are business-to-business (B2B) brands including five of the top ten: GE, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, and HP. Looking further down this list, at least 21 other brands earn substantial revenue from B2B markets. These B2B brands are: Cisco, Oracle, SAP, JP Morgan, UPS, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, Thomson Reuters, Citi, Accenture, Siemens, Morgan Stanley, Axa, Xerox, Allianz, Caterpillar, Credit Suisse, Barclays, UBS, 3M and Zurich. The value of these B2B brands is greater than higher profile consumer brands such as Starbucks, Harley Davidson, and Campbells. However, many researchers and practitioners regard brand management as being less important in B2B marketing. Early research shows that industrial firms had less brand value as a proportion of intangible asset value than did consumer goods firms (Simon and Sullivan, 1993). Later research calculates the average brand value as a proportion of market capitalization as being 37% (Madden et al., 2006). However Madden et al. (2006) data confirms that the average value of the top five B2B brands mentioned above is only 19% of market capitalization. Other research shows that the value of B2B brands varies within the same industry and some firms were using their brands more effectively than their competitors (Gregory and Sexton, 2007). Examples of industries where larger inter-firm brand value differences occurred were computer software, transportation and medical supplies. An inspection of the Interbrand list shows that B2B brands are prominent in the high technology and financial services sectors. The size and diversity of the B2B firms means that many of these brands also operate successfully in consumer markets. Furthermore, some B2B brands such as Cisco, Xerox, and Caterpillar that do not have the end-consumer as their primary customer are also meaningful to consumer segments. Thus the traditional divisions between B2B and consumer brand (B2C) firms are blurred as firms use the brand equity created in one channel to leverage their business in other channels. Although the Interbrand list demonstrates the importance of B2B branding, many commentators apply a B2C branding lens when examining branding from an organizational buying perspective. For instance, Lamons' book on B2B branding discusses brand architecture, brand personality and brand positioning which are all staple topics in consumer branding texts ( Lamons, 2005). The disadvantage of applying a B2C brand perspective to B2B brands is that the specialized nature of business marketing and purchasing is sometimes ignored. Business marketing and purchasing differs from end-consumer buying in many respects. First the value of the transaction is much larger involving raw materials and parts, capital items, operating supplies and maintenance items (Kotler and Pfoertsch, 2006). Second the complexity of the buying process often involves groups of individuals in the firm including buying committees and not just the purchasing manager. Third the buyer is often not the end user. Furthermore the customer firm's production process may incorporate suppliers' brands such as OEMs or the suppliers' brands may be resold by a distributor. These differences mean that purchasing managers need to focus on the total value of the brand to the firm and its processes, rather than simply scrutinize the price of the goods or services purchased. B2B transactions are also motivated by derived demand, there are fewer customers and there is an emphasis on longer term partnerships. Thus the B2B brand purchase can be pivotal in terms of its financial importance for the selling firm and have considerable impact on the B2B customer's business. An example of such a purchase is the ordering of passenger aircraft by the airline industry. Business marketing texts including Anderson and Narus (2004) now emphasize the value of branding in inter-organizational exchanges. The benefits of B2B branding for the selling firm include better information efficiency particularly with complex products or services as branded products make information gathering easier. Brands also reduce the chances of a poor purchase decision and reduce business risk. Moreover brands can enhance the experience for the purchaser which is an image benefit (Kotler and Pfoertsch, 2006). These benefits focus on the purchaser. Such benefits are underpinned by the need of the firm to create value for the business customer (Anderson and Narus, 2004). Creating such value for customers leads to encouraging selling opportunities, increasing likelihood of purchase, reducing time to close the sale, receiving a larger share of the purchase requirement, becoming less resistant to price increases and less willing to trial competitive offerings (Anderson and Narus, 2004). B2B brands also provide functional benefits to the selling firm, such as internal identification for inventory purposes and legal protection through trademarks. In addition, these benefits provide firms with reliable earnings and allow marketing expenditure to be directed towards these brands. Brands enhance the volatility and vulnerability of cash-flow within the organization and are an important firm resource. Thus these B2B brand benefits lead to more profitable business relationships. This article examines the relevance of B2C branding frameworks to B2B brands together with some alternative perspectives. The article presents a brand value chain showing the stages in the brand building process. The article examines relevant literature for each of these key stages on building B2B brands and offers suggestions for future research. The end of the article includes a reader practicum. This practicum allows readers to apply the lessons from this study.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The Interbrand list demonstrates the high brand dollar value of many B2B brands. A key difference between B2C and B2B marketing is the emphasis on longer-term corporate relationships and not one off transactions. The consumer psychology approach of B2C branding research does not completely address the multidimensional nature of a B2B brand in creating value between firms. Brands are an important resource and a source of value for industrial organizations. While many B2B branding studies use B2C frameworks, alternatives exist that focus on brands as a resource ( Srivastava et al., 1998). While B2B firms ensure the product meets the buyer's specification through attention to the product attributes and benefits, such transactions have a long-term component for buyers and sellers. These alternative frameworks show the effects of multipliers such as channel support and interfirm relationships on B2B brands and the importance of other stakeholders. B2B purchasing within supply chains shows how brands can enhance the customer's business particularly when firms have complementary resources. The resource-based view of the firm which regards brands as a market-based asset emphasizes the importance of interorganizational relationships for B2B customers. The initial focus of early B2B brand studies was on whether or not firms should spend marketing funds on branding. Much B2B branding research examines the marketing program showing a wide range of brand related benefits are important to industrial buyers. Fewer studies investigate the effects of brand marketing on the B2B customer. However research illustrates the importance of B2B branding in customer relationship management. Research into the performance of B2B brands indicates that leading brands create price premiums and can enhance relationships. Furthermore, strong customer relationships can be beneficial to minor brands. Further research should identify the circumstances where B2B brands can be a potential cost (rather than a benefit) to customers. Research into product and service processes could also explore how B2B branding enhances the B2B customer mindset. B2B branding effects should be considered against a wider set of relationship outcomes other than customer satisfaction and loyalty. Research could also investigate the usefulness of B2B brands in acquiring customers, customer retention, customer education, extracting or minimizing price concessions, and providing customer solutions. The contribution of B2B brands on market performance needs to be explicitly examined alongside these other firm resources. In addition, the role of B2B brands in the broader organizational context needs further exploration examining issues such as cost minimization, channel conflict and channel cooperation.