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).