Branding in Perspective: Self-Branding for Professional Success
by Joel R. Evans, Ph.D.
RMI Distinguished Professor of Business
Zarb School of Business
Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY USA
Overview
Branding has been a key part of business and marketing for several millennia (not centuries, millennia). In this paper, we begin with a discussion about general branding concepts and the evolution of branding, brand positioning, brand equity, communications, and corporate branding. Then we turn to a specific use of branding–self-branding–which needs to be understood within the context of branding overall. We present an overview of self-branding and then describe the steps in self-branding, differentiation/positioning, self-brand management and re-invention, the online self-brand, and several real examples of successful and unsuccessful self-branding. Conclusions and recommendations are offered. An extensive literature review is provided.
Introduction
According to a global consortium of marketing associations, the term “brand” is defined as a “name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (“Common Language in Marketing: Dictionary”). Yet, this simple term has many interpretations and has spawned thousands of articles in the academic and trade literature.
We often think of branding as first coming of age during the Industrial Revolution when mass production, standardized packaging, and mass communication began to emerge. However, brands in some form or other have existed for several millennia.
In their article, “The Birth of Brand: 4000 Years of Branding,” Moore and Reid (2008, p. 421) set out four main theses: (1) “Brands, from all periods in history, display two characteristics related to the conveyance of information to stakeholders: information with the purpose of indicating the origin of the product and information about quality. (2) “The evolution of brands shows a movement to greater complexity in character, including the addition of image or meaning (power, value and/or personality) to the list of information elements.” (3) “Brands, from ancient times to now, played critical roles not only for end customers, but for also for stakeholders throughout the channel.” (4) “Brands existed prior to the 20th century, but should more accurately be referred to as proto-brands. A characteristic of some proto-brands is differentiation information to help with the logistical functions of marketing. Logistical information in today’s brands is usually provided separately through a barcode or on separate labels but is not combined with the brand itself.”
This article takes the “brand” connotation further than the definition cited above. After exploring various elements of brands and branding, we look at the aspect of branding known as the “self-brand” or “personal brand.” Self-branding represents how we want to be perceived by employers, potential employers, clients, professional peers, and others in a way that enhances our short- and long-term career perspectives. For us in our career roles, self-branding can be a great marketing asset or a drain on our career potential. By taking a strategic marketing perspective with our self-branding, we can greatly enhance our chances for success–just like companies and their products do.
Because self-branding is a sub-set of branding, in this article, we examine these topics–to place self-branding in the proper context :
The Evolution of Branding Concepts
Branding has come a long way over the last four millennia. One simple definition does not really do justice to the wide-ranging uses of brands today. To again quote from Moore and Reid (2008, p. 419): “We observe a gradual transition from a more utilitarian provision of information regarding origin and quality to the addition of more complex brand image characteristics over time, including status/power, added value, and finally, the development of brand personality.”
More recently, Millard Brown Optimor’s Mario Simon (2011), wrote that:
In 1980, we found that almost the entire value of an average S&P 500 firm consisted of tangible assets. Thirty years later, tangible assets accounted for only 30 to 40 percent of the value. About half of intangible value–close to 30 percent of total business value–is attributed to brand. For many firms, brand is the single biggest asset. As people find basic consumption needs satisfied and focus on higher meaning in making brand choices, companies can to re-invent themselves through their brands. Therefore, when a brand has built a strong connection with its customer base, it has created the ultimate source of differentiation and, therefore, competitive advantage.
An examination of a review article by Stern (2006) highlights the complexity of brand meanings and the lack of consensus on what a “brand” really represents. As Jones and Bonevac (2013, p. 112) conclude: “Branding has a branding problem. There is no consensus about how to define ‘brand’.”
Brand Characteristics
There are several ways for us to better understand “brands.” Let us examine several of them.
In its earliest use, branding was used mostly to identity a product category. It rarely had a primary demand function. Consider salt, sugar, tea, coffee, and soap as examples. Only later, did branding take on the role of stimulating selective demand for particular providers, such as Morton’s Salt and Levi’s Jeans. For at least the past 60 years, the academic literature has examined these two vitally important topics -- “primary demand” and “selective demand”–which are more critical today than ever due to the level of competition around the world. See, for example, Lockley (1955), Bliss (1956), Buchanan (1965), Leone (1983), Chakravarti and Janiszewski (2004), Rahman and Areni (2014), and Evans and Berman (2015). As a rule, demand for a product category must first be generated; then, demand for a specific brand within that category can be stimulated. Thus, if consumers’ primary demand for mobile devices continues to increase rapidly, selective demand for specific brands will be easier to attain. The opposite scenario is also true.
What exactly comprises a distinctive brand? This is another topic that has been widely debated. To summarize one popular view, let us turn to Zaichkowsky (2010, p. 548):
Brand identity complements brand equity and it forms an important part of the strategic management of brands. Identity elements include a well-known brand name, logo, font type, symbols, color, shape, as well as unique product and benefit descriptions. These different elements can contribute to distinct consumer perceptions of various brands in the marketplace and help to differentiate brands from competitors. Brand managers need to use the appropriate identity elements to build the brand. Some brand identity components may be influential to choice at the subconscious level of consumers, and therefore the understanding of individual psychological processes of perception and social meaning is required by brand managers.
Although the move to global brands by many companies has increased in recent years, this approach may not be feasible or desirable due to language, cultural, economic, and other factors. For a sampling of the literature on this, see Roth (1995); Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999); Hsieh (2004); Chow and Amir (2006); Cayla and Arnould (2008); Chang (2008); Nijssen and Douglas (2011); Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012); Guo (2013); and Zarantonello, Schmitt, and Jedidi (2014).
Brand mantras (brand visions), have taken on greater significance for many firms. With a brand mantra, a firm guides employees and marketing partners as to the purpose and distinctiveness of the firm and its brands. (See McWilliam and Dumas, 1997). As Keller (1999a, p. 45) said:
Brand mantras are three to five word phrases that capture the irrefutable essence or spirit of the brand positioning. Their purpose is to ensure that all employees within the organization as well as external marketing partners understand what the brand most fundamentally is to represent with consumers so that they can adjust their actions accordingly. Brand mantras provide guidance as to what products to introduce under the brand, what ad campaigns to run, where and how the brand should be sold, and so on. The influence of brand mantras can extend beyond these tactical concerns. They may even guide the most seemingly unrelated or mundane decisions such as the look of a reception area, the way phones are answered, and so on. In effect, brand mantras are designed to create a mental filter to screen out “brand inappropriate” marketing activities or actions of any type that may have a bearing on customers’ impressions of a brand.
Virtually everyone today agrees that brand success is tied to the consumer’s perceiving a unique and desirable meaning for that brand. This has been recognized for quite a while. As William D. Tyler (then Chairman of the Plans Board for the Leo Burnett advertising agency) noted in 1957 (p. 163):
We have suddenly rediscovered that an emotional feeling about the product can be the strongest selling point that many items–for which no specific product advantage exists—can have. This may not be any great new revelation. It was used with success the last time around when we had rollicking prosperity in the land. That was during the ‘twenties. In those days, it was known as snob appeal. It did not take the deepest kind of thought to come up with the concept that lots of people want to use the kind of product that the people whom they admire, envy, and emulate use. This was the first writing in the primeval ooze of the image-projection concept in advertising.
For similar perspectives, see also Reynolds (1965); Ross (1971); and Kum, Bergkvist, Lee, and Leong (2012). Nysveen and Pedersen (2014) take this one step further by discussing the role of consumers as brand co-creators.
Brand Extensions and Brand Dilution
In various situations, brand extension is utilized. Edward M. Tauber has been a pioneer in writing about this area; see Tauber’s excellent Web site (2012) for his insights.
Here are some examples of types of brand extension:
A crucial consideration (risk) with regard to brand extension is knowing how “elastic” the brand is (see Monga and John, 2010). How far can a company take brand extension before it dilutes the value of the overall brand? Consider these varying observations about brand dilution:
Our data suggest that well-established brand names can be hurt, in the eyes of consumers, by some brand extensions. Extensions delivering attributes at odds with what consumers expect from the family brand can produce dilution of the specific beliefs associated with the family brand. Though early research on dilution has failed to find much of a negative impact from brand extensions, our findings confirm that firms are at risk in launching brand extensions with attributes that are incompatible with or negate favorable family brand beliefs. Furthermore, the degree of risk is likely to vary as a function of several factors. (Loken and John, 1993, p. 81)
A product failure may not harm the parent brand if the extension category is far removed. Managers can be reassured that although there are many considerations that would influence a decision to attempt to stretch a brand into a more removed product category, the actual risk to the parent brand may not be as great as previously thought. (Sood and Keller, 2012, p. 380)
Stages of Branding
It is also widely agreed by industry and academic experts that branding should not be a one-shot exercise or a haphazard process of brand development. Instead, the process should be systematic and goal-oriented in nature. As Kohli and LaBahn (1997, p. 74) note:
Managers should: (1) Set clear objectives for the naming process. This can be drawn from the marketing strategy, especially a positioning statement for a product. (2) Create a reasonably long list of candidate names. This ensures a pool of alternatives. Traditional methods of brainstorming and individual creative thinking are useful and an excellent starting point. (3) Conduct a thorough evaluation of candidate names. Consider each criterion deemed appropriate for the product being introduced. Managers should plan carefully to ensure a complete and objective evaluation of the names. (4) Systematically apply the objectives and criteria specified in the earlier steps in choosing the final brand name. (5) Choose four to five names for submission to the Patent and Trademark Office for registration. Managers are well-advised to try to reflect the ‘marketing’ objectives in the names without unduly constraining themselves with trademark concerns.
These are just a few other examples of the extensive literature regarding the need for and the implementation of a systematic branding process: Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986); de Chernatony and McWilliam (1989); and Boatwright, Cagan, Kapur, and Saltiel. (2009).
Brand Gaps
One branding difficulty that may arise involves “brand gaps.” This occurs when brands are not perceived by customers, resellers, etc. as intended by the company. Corrective action (revamped ads, modified product features, and so forth) is then a must. Generally, these concepts come into play.
One, what are the ideal brand attributes desired by the target market for a given product? Two, how is a brand actually perceived by consumers? Three, what are the actual attributes that a given brand represents? An undesirable gap exists when the ideal brand is not what customers perceive that a company brand represents and/or when the perceived brand is not representative of the actual brand. In the first instance, consumers will not buy the company’s brand. In the latter instance, the consumer will not repurchase a brand that does not live up to expectations.
For a cross-section of the literature on brand gaps, see de Chernatony (1993); Miller and Berry (1998); de Chernatony (1999); Sääksjärv and Samiee (2011); Anker, Kappel, Eadie, and Sandøe (2012); Romaniuk, Bogomolova, and Riley (2012); and da Silveira, Lages, and Simões (2013).
Brand Positioning
Brand positioning is a key element related to self-branding. As Evans and Berman state (2015, p. 310): With brand positioning, a firm [person] can map its brand/s in terms of target audience perceptions and desires, competition, other brands, and environmental changes. Perceptions are the brand images, both a firm’s [person’s] and competitors’, in people’s minds. Target audience desires refer to attributes which this audience would most like a brands to have—their ideal. A firm [person] will do well if its brand attributes are perceived as being close to the ideal.
Let us now discuss the factors shown in Figure 1 as they affect brand positioning.
Product/Brand Category–The way in which a brand is positioned is very much influenced by the general product category in which it resides (such as fine jewelry versus costume jewelry) as well as the more specific category in which it resides (such as fine watches versus inexpensive quartz watches). Consider this example from Punj and Moon (2002, p. 276):