جهت گیری برند و جهت گیری بازار - از جایگزینی تا هم افزایی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4185||2013||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6340 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 66, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 13–20
This paper explores the interaction between brand orientation and market orientation. Brand orientation is an inside-out, identity-driven approach that sees brands as a hub for an organization and its strategy. Similarly, market orientation is an outside-in, image-driven approach. Initially, brand orientation and market orientation appear to be two different strategic options. Though synergistic combinations are also possible, they are not explored in previous theories, nor labeled as part of branding practice and philosophy. A new type of orientation, a hybrid between brand and marketing orientation, is among the key findings of this study. The paper articulates typical trajectories for evolving the orientation and aspires to move the discussion from the tug-of-war between the two paradigms by developing a more dynamic view. The study paves the way for better understanding, operationalization and evaluation of alternative approaches to marketing.
The discussion about market orientation and brand orientation is in essence concerned with a company's or organization's approach to brands and the market. Is it the brand identity or the brand image that serves as a guiding light? Should a company's management primarily take the outside-in perspective or the inside-out perspective when guiding their brands? Or should they select a brand approach that is a combination of these two perspectives? How can management square the general principle that the customer is king with the specific belief that our brands are our greatest assets? 1.1. The brand and the business In 1989, Nestlé acquired the British confectionery company Rowntree for 4.5 billion USD, which was six times its book value and twenty-six times its annual profit. The fixed assets were 600 million USD, and Nestlé paid 3.9 billion USD for what were described as ‘other values’. Their head of marketing commented in an earlier research study: “How much are brands such as Kit Kat, After Eight, Lion, Polo, and Smarties worth? Brands, brand management, sectors, segments are equities valued differently from one firm to another… The value becomes a strategic value” (Urde, 1997, p. 12). The Rowntree case is a prominent example, acting as a milestone in the way marketers view, consider and work with brands as strategic resources, a fundamental characteristic of the brand orientation approach. A senior vice president at Nestlé remarked in the same study upon the difference between market orientation and the proposed definition of brand orientation: “Market orientation is on a more uncomplicated, short-term, and fundamental level. If an organization is only market oriented, then it's still in the discussion about products and markets. Brand orientation is an additional degree of sophistication. To be brand oriented is market orientation ‘plus’.” (Urde, 1999, p. 118). Has the understanding of brands, the role of brands, and the management of brands fundamentally changed, or are these examples just anomalies: that is, rare exceptions to the rule that can be disregarded? Kuhn, 1962 and Kuhn, 1977, discussing paradigm shifts, describes a change of practice, the theoretical applications and the set of fundamental rules that define an area or discipline. In a narrow sense, identifying a shift in a paradigm is about ideas expressed in textbooks, while in a broader sense, it can be viewed as what is seen as the theoretical foundation of a given area. It is now vital to backtrack for further reflection on developments within the area of strategic brand management. For example, if an older edition of a marketing textbook by Kotler were to be compared with a more recent edition of a reader on strategic brand management by Kapferer, what conclusions could be drawn? If attention is paid to ‘new‘ concepts such as identity, brand equity, core values, corporate branding, internal branding, employer branding, brand leadership, and reputation, how has theory evolved? And, how do firms manage brands in a practical sense? How are the manager's approach and mindset evolving, with respect to brands, markets and customers?
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
6.1. Theoretical implications The previous three sections crystallize into four theoretical implications concerning the motivations behind choosing and evolving a particular orientation. The first is that brand orientation caters to firms offering a visionary approach to their market, as in the Body Shop case. Visionary moves often break from the traditional narrow focus on the customer and become more market-driving than market-driven (Kumar, Scheer, & Kotler, 2000). Organizations with strong principles and values, such as Amnesty International, also suit the brand orientation approach. The second theoretical implication is that brand-orientated firms evolve to a brand and market orientation. That is, brand-orientated firms add a strong dose of market focus to their very strong branding-centric approach. A major reason for this addition is to maintain the relevance of the brand to customers. Over time, a strong brand cannot isolate itself from the evolving needs of its customers. For example, Volvo has a long track record built on the core values of quality, environment and safety ( Urde, 2003 and Urde, 2009). However, declining profitability plus consumer demand for more excitement and improved aesthetics has led to a brand and market orientation, resulting in a stronger brand now coupled with greater attention to consumer needs. A third theoretical implication is that market orientation suits firms requiring a customer focus. In a sense, this is the default option, since it reflects the dominant paradigm of the marketing discipline for the past fifty years, disseminated in through marketing textbooks and company strategy statements. To be customer-centric is the norm for business expectations. Market orientation studies outnumber brand orientation studies by a considerable margin. A fourth theoretical implication is that market orientated firms evolve to a market and brand orientation. That is, market orientated firms add a strong dose of branding to their very strong customer-centric approach. A major reason for doing so is to rein in greater control, achieve manageability and coherence, and project a greater degree of difference. All of these factors represent a more conditional (branding) response to customer needs rather than something resembling an unconditional response to service customers. This evolution from market orientation to market and brand orientation becomes more essential as the market share of the firm increases, particularly if it becomes the market leader. 6.2. Managerial implications The discussion about market orientation and brand orientation is, in essence, about the approach of a company or organization to brands and the market. Based upon this new way of thinking, three broad implications arise for the management of brands. 6.2.1. Choice of orientation The initial orientation of a company may reflect deeply held convictions or a bold vision with the hope of attracting customers, which is typical of brand orientation, or a strong intent to serve customers by answering unmet needs and wants, which is typical of market orientation. The choice is not inherently free, but is dependent on, for example, existing culture, competencies and resources. In the case of the Ben & Jerry's ice cream brand, the founders state “We have always done as much as possible for community and society, and hoped to make a reasonable profit. Money is not our main motivation” (Roberts, 2010, p. 9). This statement projects as a clear brand-oriented approach. Unilever bought the brand in 2000 for USD 326 million. A quote by one of the co-founders of the ice cream brand demonstrates the difference in orientation: “Ben & Jerry's is values led, whereas Unilever is more consumer driven” (Roberts, 2010, p. 9). When it comes to choice of orientation, a brand manager can find himself or herself in a position where the brand's orientation differs from the owner's. A company's orientation does not need to be the same as that of an individual brand in the portfolio. In the case of companies such as P&G, Unilever, DuPont, Volvo, and Nestlé, one would most likely find brands that have an orientation different from the corporation's. The understanding that a brand may not only represent a positioning in the market and a special value proposition, but also a different orientation, may well be vital for the policy makers in the strategy process. 6.2.2. Change of orientation A change of the orientation of a brand is an elevated policy decision. It is a shift of the entire operation and the perception of staff. It affects the culture, the prioritizations, the dynamic in which the company engages with the market, and how managers regard the brand. A change of strategic orientation prompts a transformation process for the adoption of a new or altered mindset. As the Nicorette case illustrates, it is evident that this change cannot be developed too abruptly or without the understanding and commitment of the organization. Such insight is a crucial lesson for managers to note. A change of orientation can be like changing the course of an oil tanker, but the need to evolve is sometimes necessary. Consider the position of Chinese industry. China has become the workshop of the world, manufacturing products for international brands. Today, one can find production of such brands as Nike, Adidas, and Reebok taking place in a single area. Chinese industry is, in this sense, extremely market oriented: that is, it produces according to customer specification. In the future, it is probable that Chinese industry will endeavor to establish and build its own brands, and thus become more brand oriented. However, this requires Chinese managers first to learn more about branding and communication on an international scale. 6.2.3. Negotiating between orientations Managers in any organization are often torn between short-term sales cycles and the more long-term commitments of building and managing brands. The market demands require balance with sound principles of brand management. With the understanding of the orientations and the drivers as well as the different perspectives, the manager can alleviate the usual tug-of-war pressures between brand and market orientation. In discussion in late 2010, the CEO of Electrolux commented on the interaction between market and brand orientation as follows: “Our shareholders have given us money to grow, and we need to sell our products with a margin to build our business. This means that we need to target a sufficiently large customer segment. A brand that does not appeal to consumers becomes a problem. We are fortunate because our Electrolux brand stands for values that attract the ‘Affirmation of Self’ customer segment, which has proven to be the most significant and important for the Electrolux brand. We have not sought out customers and afterwards, adapted the brand values to suit their needs. In our case, this has not been necessary. At Electrolux we always start with a consumer insight process but are careful to avoid making concessions with our brands. There is no contradiction between being both market oriented and brand oriented.” The discussion in this paper will be relevant and advantageous for managers in finding the middle ground: that is, the ability to maintain sound business without violating the brand core identity.