Brand management

1. Annukka Jyrämä Brand management

2. Annukka Jyrämä Branding • A mission for the brand and a vision of what the brand must be and do • promise to deliver a specific set of features, benefits, services, and experiences consistently to the buyers. • Some analysts see brands as the major enduring asset of a company, outlasting the company’s specific products and facilities • Brand equity • the positive differential effect that knowing the brand name has on customer response to the product or service • One measure of equity is the extent to which customers are willing to pay more for the brand • Brand valuation is the process of estimating the total financial value of a brand

3. Top 100 global brandshttp://www.millwardbrown.com/docs/default-source/global-brandz-downloads/global/2014_BrandZ_Top100_Chart.pdf

4. Why? (For what purpose?) To whom? When? When to be used? Against whom? Who are our competitors? Annukka Jyrämä How to build brand positioning Questions to help. Kapferer 2003, Strategic Brand Management

5. Annukka Jyrämä Positioining in three levels: Grouping and consuming brands Lindroos, Nyman, Lindroos (2005) SPIRITUALLEVEL IKON BRANDS WISH SOCIAL IDENTITY LEVEL IDENTITY- BRANDS WANT CONSUMING FUNCTIONAL BASIC LEVEL POWER BRANDS NEED Lindroos, Nyman, Lindroos (2005) ref. D. Aaker Brand Leadership), Kirkas Brandi. Miten suomalainen tuote erottuu, lisää arvoaan ja perustelee hintansa. WSOY: Helsinki

6. Annukka Jyrämä Brand development • Line extensions • minor changes to existing products • such as new flavors, forms, colors, ingredients, or package sizes. • to meet consumer desires for variety, to use excess capacity, or simply to command more shelf space from resellers. • Brand extensions • successful brand names help introduce new products • instant recognition and faster acceptance • saves the high advertising costs • Multibrands • Multiple product entries in a product category • New brands • New product category

7. Annukka Jyrämä, HSE Branding extensions and the art organization Annukka Jyrämä

8. Co-branding • Combining the brand of a (cultural) organization into another brand’s name. • Extension branding • Introducing new products that carry the (cultural) organizations brand name.

9. d'Astous, A.; Colbert, F. & Fournier, M. (2007). An experimental investigation of the use of brand extension and co-branding strategies in the arts Journal of Services Marketing. 21/4, 231-240.

10. Brandextentions – co-branding • The reputation of the arts organization has a positive impact on the evaluation of the brand extension (either a single-branded or a co-branded product) if the fit between the arts organization and the product category is high. • The perceived congruence between the arts organization and the brand extension’s product category has a positive impact on the evaluation of the extension (either a single-branded or a co-branded product). • The perceived difficulty in manufacturing the extension’s product category (either a single-branded or a co-branded product) has a positive impact on the evaluation of the extension. • In the case of a brand extension from an arts organization, a co-branded product is better evaluated than a single-branded product when the partner brand has a good reputation for the extension’s product category

11. Topics to reflect / disscuss • Regardless of the extension strategy the arts organisation uses, the product should be congruent and simple (if these are met, co-branding can yield stronger results) • Contrary to previous research, the reputation of the arts organisation presenting the extension didn’t have a significant effect on consumer attitudes • Impact of an extension’s perceived complexity may be less evident than previously thought • Products that fit well with the arts organization’s domain were more favoured • The best, but also the worst impact on attitudes was found with co-branding strategy  from exploiting the arts organisation’s brand

12. Example of study

13. IMAGE HERE Brand Image of Merging Brands – An Empirical Analysis of the Merging of Two Orchestras and a Music University AnnukkaJyrämä, Aalto University School of Business, Finland Sami Kajalo, Aalto University School of Business, Finland AnniMäkinen, Aalto University School of Business, Finland Tanja Johansson (Vilen), Sibelius Academy, Finland Junio 26 – 29, 2013

14. Introduction • Increased cooperative efforts in the field of arts management have influenced also the importance of brand alliances and strategic decisions regarding brands. • Various brand alliances may leave cultural managers dealing with: • complex brand portfolios (e.g. d’Astous et al, 2007; Basu 2006) • brand architecture (e.g. Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000b; Uggla and Filipsson 2009; Harish 2008) • brand image (e.g. Keller 1993; Aaker and Jochimshaler 2000a). • Few studies are addressing the consumer perceptions as a basis for brand architecture in the field of arts management.

15. Aim of the study • In the paper we aim to investigate how consumer perceptions of brand image can be used for the creation of new brand architecture and brand relationships: • Analysis of brand images and brand image dimensions in the process of joining brands. • Focus in particular on the formation of brand architecture in prior to new alliances and joint operations.

16. Context • The empirical context of our study is the Helsinki Music Center that joins three prominent brands under a joint entity. • The Helsinki Music Centre houses three important actors of Finnish classical music: Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra, Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra and the Sibelius Academy.

17. Main brand architecture strategies Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000a; 2000b

18. Dimensions of brand identity

19. Data and methods • An Internet survey in 2011, three months before Helsinki Music Center (HMC)was opened to the public. N=418. • Questionnaire was based on previous studies:

20. Results: Factor analysis • Factor 1. Highly positive attitude towards HMC corporate brand. • Factor 2. Strong brand loyalty and preference towards individual brands. • Factor 3. Positive behavioral expectations towards HMC corporate brand. • Opposite to factor 2, which indicated strong loyalty towards individual brands, this factor clearly shows positive behavioral expectations towards HMC brand. • Factor 4. Recognition of visual and functional attributes of HMC corporate brand. • Interesting finding as this was not expected based on previous literature. • Factor 5. Low quality expectations and negative associations towards HMC corporate brand.

21. Results: Cluster analysis • The respondents were further categorized into three groups using the cluster analysis method: • “Loyal customers of the familiar products brands” (N=176) • “Positive attitudes towards HMC corporate brand” (N=101) • “Negative attitude” (N=11) • The results indicate mainly positive attitudes towards the new merged brand, even though the customer loyalty seems to remain with the individual brands.

22. Conclusions • The dimensions of brand image were corresponding with the dimensions identified from literature. • A more functional dimension linked to brand image was also found: the visual dimension of the brand. • No clear dominance of either product or corporate brand was found. • HMC brand is constructed through the individual brands. Thus, the product brands have endorsing power towards the corporate brand. • Results suggest that studying the brand images prior to mergers gives useful tools to manage the joining brands and their brand architecture.

23. Thank you!

24. Case: Guggenheim Helsinki http://www.hel.fi/hki/helsinki/en/Services/Culture+and+libraries/guggenheim-study http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/press-room/news/3891

25. Guggenheim Helsinki • Discuss based on the press material and your own knowledge • What is the ”experience” that you might expect from brand name: Guggenheim • What is the experience you expect from Helsinki brand • How about the combination of both? • What would be the ideal Guggenheim Helsinki like - you can use pictures and drawings