WASEDA BUSINESS & ECONOMIC STUDIES 2012 NO.

48

Rebranding The Brand Concept:

The Past as Future

Kenneth Alan Grossberg1

The Centrality of Branding in Marketing

Brands are so ubiquitous and so much a part of the symbolic language of modern
material culture that we hardly think of them any more as discrete, external components
of actual products and services. Strong brands are important to the success of products or
services for several documented reasons: 72 percent of customers say that they are willing
to pay twenty percent more for their brand of choice over the closest competitive brand;
50 percent of customers will pay a 25 percent premium, and forty percent of customers
will pay up to a thirty percent premium for their favourite brand. In addition, twenty-five
percent of American customers insist that price does not matter if they are buying a brand
that they are loyal to, and over seventy percent of customers say that they want to use a
brand to guide their purchase decision with over half of all purchases actually being brand
driven.2 So branding is well established as an almost indispensable factor in marketing
success. But if we take a look at the evolution of brand use we must ask ourselves whether
this is the final destination of what branding signifies for us, or will there be further
changes in how we view and use brands? Branding, after all, was first conceived to protect
products from failure and to identify what those products did or what need was satisfied.
More than a century ago companies like Campbell’s and Heinz developed brands to
reassure the public about the goodness of factory-produced goods over homemade ones.
Conveying trust, then, was one of the primary reasons for companies to create and
support their brands. Since that time, brands have been significant in transforming
marketing into a process based on perception-building rather than just on product
experience, and because perception is a fragile and mutable thing, if the brand image

1
Kenneth Alan Grossberg is professor of marketing & strategy at Waseda Business School
(Graduate School of Commerce, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan) and founder and
director of the Waseda Marketing Forum. http://wasedamarketing.com/

1
becomes tarnished for some reason, the organization that the brand represents can be put
in a dangerous situation.2
Branding has become the universally preferred way to enhance the value of an
offering in the marketplace and to secure for its creator or proponent the maximum
return on investment. In fact, in our social media infused, everything-available-
everywhere-all-the-time world, so much attention and effort have been lavished on
branding a product that the product or service itself — what makes it a desirable object of
purchase - has often been given short shrift. Being able to exploit a brand’s image or
message to convey quality derives from the fact that the product or service offers a quality
performance to the consumer in the first place. The world is full of examples of how
brands came to build value — interpreted as brand equity — because the products they
represented were widely appreciated for quality or uniqueness. This applies equally to
branded fashion goods as to a mass-produced chocolate bars or laptop computers. But
sometimes, instead of being an avatar of the product’s benefits the brand becomes a
painful reminder to the customer of what once was, because recent experience with the
product may have led the consumer to feel that the high performance level s/he formerly
took for granted has declined. This relationship holds whether the product is a designer
shirt, a luxury hotel, a passenger jet plane, a bank or a humble candy bar. Perhaps the
cotton used in the shirt is no longer of the sheen or quality that made the brand favoured
to begin with, or the fixtures, furnishings and service in the hotel have slipped and are no
longer supporting the brand image — an image that evolved because these material
representations of the brand were once superb in their own right. Perhaps the candy bar
which used to smell and taste of real chocolate now exudes the ersatz aroma and taste of
corn syrup and fillers, and the airline’s cabins reflect a worn indifference to customer
comfort or provide less legroom than the customer remembers in years gone by.

Brand Proliferation and Brand Fatigue

The number of brands in the marketplace vying for our attention and loyalty has
proliferated enormously during the past two decades. Since 1991, for example, the
number of brands on American grocery store shelves has tripled. In 2003 the US Patent
and Trademark Office issued 140,000 trademarks - 100,000 more than in 1983. The
average American sees over sixty percent more ad messages per day than in 1993. Not

2
Scott M. David, Brand Asset Management: Driving Profitable Growth Through Your
Brands, John Wiley & Sons, 2002, p. 5

2
surprisingly, even as companies have spent enormous amounts of time and energy
introducing new brands and defending established ones, and despite the statistics quoted
earlier, Americans have become less brand loyal. Consumer-goods markets used to be very
stable. Twenty years ago, if you had a given set of customers you could be pretty sure
most of them would still be around two years, five years, or ten years later. That is no
longer true. A study by retail-industry tracking firm NPD Group found that nearly half
of those who described themselves as highly loyal to a brand were no longer loyal a year
later. Even seemingly strong names rarely translate into much power at the cash register
any more. Another remarkable study found that just 4 percent of consumers would be
willing to stick with a brand if its competitors offered better value for the same price.
Consumers are continually looking for a better deal, opening the door for companies to
introduce a raft of new products.3 Add to this consumer fickleness the fact that downward
adjustments in the performance of a product or service can lead to a decline in customer
confidence that the performance promise which is represented by its brand will actually
be delivered when the product is purchased, and then you have a potentially damaging
situation for marketers.
What are the consequences for branding in general and for the organizations that
rely on branding when this deterioration sets in? In the first place, negative consumer
attitudes can arise when a product’s handlers emphasize the brand’s established image in
the marketplace instead of providing a credible integrated treatment of the components of
the offering - the 4 P’s of product, pricing, distribution and promotion. Here we concern
ourselves with the current tendency of some marketers to view branding defensively as a
way to shore up an image in the marketplace in the belief that aggressively supporting the
brand through puffery and promotion will prevent consumers from realizing that their
hotel, handbag, chocolate bar, airline, restaurant, supermarket, automobile, insurance
provider, bank, computer, university, and so forth, have neglected the performance
standard for their product/service in favour of investing in the brand name and image
alone.

Branding’s New Persona

It is important to remember that historically, branding originated from underlying
needs. Those multiple needs included: 1) honesty, 2) providing an assurance of standard

3
James Surowiecki, “The Decline of Brands,” Wired, Nov. 2004 http://www.wired.com/
wired/archive/12.11/brands.html

3
or uniform quality, 3) identifying the source or ownership, 4) holding producers
responsible for product performance, 5) specifying and differentiating one product from
others, and 6) creating emotional bonding with that product. People still value brands for
many of these same reasons today.4 So when a product’s quality is compromised but the
brand message remains the same, consumers can come to feel that they are being ignored
or even deceived. Brands are considered so much a part of the success of a product or
service that enormous efforts are invested to keep them fresh, attractive and approachable.
But perhaps we have reached the ultimate point in the evolution of this process, and may
be beginning to see the stirrings of a revolt against those brands that are guilty of
supplying the consumer “sizzle” without the “steak” of actual benefits or satisfaction.
While there is not yet a global crisis of confidence in buyer acceptance of the value
of brands, the definition of the brand experience must inevitably be influenced by the
consumer’s growing sophistication in evaluating whether brands still deliver what they
promise in terms of product and service quality. The current enthusiasm for creating
brand relationships with the target market by means of social media is also no long-term
panacea, although it may help to mask product deficiencies in the short run by engaging
the target consumer emotionally on an ongoing basis. In fact, as many marketers are
discovering, use of the social media constitutes a double-edged sword. Your target market
can not only communicate their dissatisfaction with you, the marketer, but with each
other, and that can create a negative viral effect in which many formerly loyal customers
begin to realize that they, too, have been let down by a brand and begin to communicate
that actively to each other. In addition, as the chart below indicates, why marketers think
a consumer likes or follows a brand on social media is often very different from why a
consumer actually does so.

4
Derrick Daye, “History of Branding,” Branding Strategy (The Branding Blog), August
14, 2006. http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2006/08/history_of_bran.html#more

4
 Source: Steve Olenski, “The engagement marketing disconnect between consumers and brands rages on,”
socialmedia today (posted Nov. 30, 2012) http://socialmediatoday.com/steve-olenski/1045231/engagement-
marketing-disconnect-between-consumers-and-brands-rages?mdwainwright&buffer_share=5b1d7l

The same goes for marketers’ reliance on certain metrics to indicate the level of
brand engagement by consumers, as shown in the statistics below.

Source: Steve Olenski, Ibid.

According to a recent report by the CMO Council, surprisingly few consumers turn
to social media channels to criticize brands or complain about negative experiences.
Instead, they use open social communities to share generally positive engagements. But
customers also have high expectations when connecting with brands through social
channels. They expect answers within 24 hours, and increasingly, they seek an immediate

5
response - 22 percent of consumers want instant gratification, with an additional 19
percent looking for resolution within hours. One-third of consumers say that great online
customer support keeps them loyal. Customers also use social media to take advantage of
offers and discounts, and to share experiences about brands they love. They are also
looking for unique, exclusive experiences. The top expectation that comes with a “like” is
to be eligible for exclusive offers (67 percent), followed by the opportunity to interact
with other customers who share a consumer’s own experiences (60 percent). Games and
contests are also big draws—65 percent of consumers want to find them when making
online brand connections, and 57 percent expect them from brands on Facebook. So far,
few consumers report feeling let down by their social brand experiences. Only 3 percent
declare the engagement a “total waste of time.” What’s more, 40 percent of consumers
want and expect more, and this audience must be taken seriously by marketers. The
research showed that while 49 percent of respondents were in the coveted 18–34 age
bracket, 31 percent of social media users are over age 45, and 14 percent are between the
ages 55 and 65, so marketers should not equate social media use only with a young
demographic. On average, the consumers surveyed have 546 Facebook friends and 95
Twitter followers, and they follow 36 brands on Facebook and 61 brands on Twitter. This
is an influential group willing to put their loyalty into those brands that are building
experiences to meet and exceed their social expectations.5
For customers who have “liked” a brand on Facebook or elsewhere, marketers feel
that they do so because the content they have been presented with is agreeable or
otherwise compelling. Marketers also feel that many customers like or engage because
they wish to be heard (41 percent) or because they want to track news or information
about products (40 percent). Only 33 percent believe that their fans are looking for
incentives or rewards, and only 27 percent believe customers are seeking special savings or
experiences exclusive for followers. Because of this belief, few marketers are responding to
“likes” with special savings or deals (22 percent), special perks, or privileges (7 percent).
And given the customer expectation for immediate response and resolution to issues,
marketers are missing an opportunity to address service and customer care by not
leveraging social media to provide faster handling and better customer service (4
percent).6
Despite increasing investment in social media by marketers and the promise this

5
CMO Council Report (2011), Variance in the social brand experience, pp.4 — 5.
6
Ibid., p. 6.

6
holds for strengthening customer loyalty, “Brands can only take you so far,” asserts Bruno
Guillon, CEO of Mulberry, the upmarket handbag maker. “It’s the product itself that is
important. All around the world consumers are…showing they want great
products...They are becoming more interested in the details and each manufacturer has to
meet these challenges in its own way.” 7 This is obviously the case with a product that
involves visible style and quality materials like leather goods, but what about ordinary
mass-produced packaged products that you can find on any supermarket shelf? The
promise represented by a brand remains the same — either the brand supports a product’s
quality image or it contradicts it.

Brand Failures Will Lead to Rebranding the Classic Brand Concept

Brand failure can occur for many reasons: 1) taking your customers for granted, 2)
minimizing the impact of competition, 3) organizational arrogance, often referred to as
“brand ego”, and 4) inability to judge your product objectively. 8 At the end of the day,
you must deliver what you promise. One example of this brand failure can be seen in a
critique of the Merrill Lynch brand which dissected the components of the promise made
by that company to its clients to show how the brand had lost its raison d’etre. Regarding
Merrill’s commitment to look after clients first, the firm sold stocks to clients which its
own analysts had reviewed unfavorably. Regarding adhering to high standards of integrity,
the company helped Enron conceal weaknesses in Enron’s balance sheet. With respect to
understanding financial risk, over the course of a year and a half Merrill lost 25% of the
total profits accumulated in its thirty-six years as a public company.9 This type of brand
erosion caused by performance failure occurs in all industries and all different types of
products or services and is one reason why so many brands become liabilities instead of
assets..
The consultant Umair Haque has spoken of the arrival of “meaningful brands” to
replace the older concepts of functional (19th century origin) and aspirational (20th
century origin) brands. Meaningful brands are, in his view, the next iteration in the
evolution of branding, and by meaningful he means brands which signal that a company
1) does not harm society, nature or communities, and 2) has a product that offers a

7
Peter Marsh interview, “Mulberry can see wood from trees,” Financial Times
8
Mike Linton, “When Good Brands Go Bad,” Forbes.com, April 7, 2010.
9
Brandsinger, “Merrill Lynch brand gone bad,” Sept. 17, 2008.

7
tangible, positive impact via such things as sustainability. 10.Haque proposed that such
meaningful brands are not egocentric like the aspirational ones were, but rather
“allocentric” and are the hope for rebuilding brands’ currently eroding place in the
customer’s consciousness. But we still must return to the fact that a meaningful brand
needs to deliver what its ad copy promises. In this it is no different from the challenge
created for functional or aspirational brands by the contemporary customer’s growing
scepticism.
Brands still provide us with a shorthand for identifying products that we like (or
dislike) but the sluggish global economic environment will probably make it harder for
brand marketers to achieve their profit and sales objectives than in the past. Brand-
switching is only one of the threats. The challenge from generic brands will grow ever
stronger unless branded goods can maintain a superior performance level or a perception
of greater value in the eyes of the customer, and with so much outsourcing of
manufacturing to overseas production platforms where quality control may be harder to
enforce, that may be a goal more elusive than ever. Underneath it all rests the basic
equation between product and service quality on the one hand and brand delight on the
other. One cannot long survive without the other. The disappointment of consumers with
everything from mobile phones to airline travel will ultimately lead to increasing
scepticism, and scepticism is the enemy of robust sales.11 We may be witnessing a partial
return to the nineteenth century concept of a functional brand, where branding signals
what a product is supposed to do or deliver, without necessarily telegraphing high quality
or superior performance. Certainly the widespread proliferation of brands simply makes it
harder for a customer to differentiate between them, and when that happens the acid test
becomes one of function more than of aspiration. Haque’s idea of a meaningful brand is
ideological which does not promise great stability for his concept. Once there are many
competing meaningful brands of a particular product or service, the meaningful
component ceases to be the differentiator. If all makers of microwave ovens tout their
green ecological and sustainable nature, what was once meaningful when only one
manufacturer produced a “green” microwave loses its power to command consumer
loyalty. At that point we are thrown back against the other 3 P’s of marketing strategy —

10
Umair Haque, umairhaque.com
11
Just 30% of travellers are brand-loyal to a particular airline, for example. See Henry
Harteveldt, “Why TV Advertising Still Makes Sense for Airlines,” Atmosphere Research
Group Blog, March 25,2012.

8
pricing, promotion and distribution for the brand, which may be as it should be. After
all, if branding can no longer provide extra support for the success of a product or service,
then what is its contribution?12

12
The trend toward a new generation of brands that have no logo, created for pure utility
and function, has led to a discussion of the “unbrand”. Massive changes in how we buy
(online, peer - to - peer with a huge selection available) coupled with modern technology
(crowdsourcing, mass customization) means that this trend is likely to grow. See Mitch
Joel, “The Rise of the Unbrand”, Harrard Business Review, HBR Blog Network (Jan. 31,
2013).