×

Message

EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

View e-Privacy Directive Documents

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.

6 Appendix

6.1 Comparison of generic branding options.

Table 4. Comparison of the generic branding options, according Backhaus (as quoted in Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2006:91).

Brand strategy

Pro

Contra


Brand

width

Corporate
brand
  • Widest and most efficient use of time, resources and brand investments.
  • High stability, less complexity.
  • Reinforces comprehensive solutions.
  • Maximum market impact.
  • Generic brand profile
  • Possible bad-will transfer on all products.

Family
brand
  • Brand investment covers a product line.
  • Positive image and brand transfer on all products (synergy effect).
  • Use of brand-related interconnections.
  • Possible brand dilution.
  • Limitations for product positioning.

Product
brand
  • Product-specific brand profile
  • No bad-will transfer.
  • Creates diverse growth platforms.
  • Expensive product-specific brand creation.
  • High brand variety weakens the perception of single brands.

Brand

lenght

Premium
brand
  • High profile, high quality positioning.
  • High price premium.
  • Expensive brand creation.
  • Difficult to approach with a family brand.

Classic
brand
  • Applicable in mass markets.
  • Creates high brand reliance.
  • Requires ubiquity.
  • High level of brand awareness needed (cost intensive).

Brand

depth

National
brand
  • No language problems.
  • Adapted to national requirements.
  • Can become useless with later internationalization.
  • Can be too expensive (less standardization).

International
brand
  • Potential standardization.
  • Cost effective (economies of scale).
  • Necessary to comply with different legal requirements.
  • Possible image dilution.
  • Language/cultural problems

 

6.2 Aaker’s Brand Identity Planning Model

Brand identity planning model

Figure 31. Brand identity planning model (Aaker, 2000:44).