No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, propositions in an existing conceptual framework are empirically explored to note whether and how brand meaning gaps exist for internal and external stakeholders of a focal brand. Second, a typology of brand meaning gaps, characterised by meaning assonance and valence, offers new insight for brand management strategy. Design/methodology/approach – The authors use case study methods to explore the research propositions about brand meaning gaps among stakeholder groups. The focal firm is The Black Dog Company of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts in the USA. Data from brand owners (internal stakeholders) and consumers (external stakeholders) are collected using in-depth interviews, observation, document analysis, and an online survey that includes a picture association task. Further inductive analysis of secondary data helps develop the typology of brand meaning gaps and dynamics. Findings – The research propositions are supported. Brand meaning gaps exist between internal and external stakeholders, and they exist among two external stakeholder groups. Brand meaning for owners, primarily defined as family heritage, is largely unknown to consumers. Among consumers, brand meaning for stakeholder group 1 is “coastal New England”; brand meaning for group 2 is “dog lovers.” Although multiple brand meanings exist for stakeholders, the meanings are relatively assonant (harmonious) and positively valenced. The findings regarding the polysemic nature of brand meaning are useful to brand managers seeking to leverage offerings to multiple target markets. These findings, along with additional secondary data, serve as the basis for a typology of brand gaps and dynamics characterized by assonance and valence. Four types of meaning gaps may lead to situations where brands are beloved, on-the-cusp, hijacked, or facing disaster. Originality/value – This work addresses calls from the literature to empirically explore brand meaning among multiple stakeholder groups.

No abstract

Over the past 30 years the United States has grappled with the regulation of children's advertising in various media. The same debate that occurred in the 1970's in the US over banning children's advertising is heating up in the EU today. As with other regulatory issues the regulation of children's advertising involves trade‐offs. In the US, the First Amendment rights of the advertisers must be balanced with the government interest in protecting children. The regulation of children's advertising also involves balancing the competing interests of advocacy groups, legislators, broadcasters and advertisers. Advocacy groups have been very effective in focusing public attention on the issues of children's advertising. One of the most vocal and impactful groups was Action for Children's Television (ACT), whose efforts culminated in the passage of the 1990 Children's Television Act. Once that was accomplished, ACT was disbanded. In more recent years, however, the Centre for Media Education (CME) has replaced ACT in calling for regulation of children's advertising. CME was instrumental in pushing the 1996 FTC investigation related to 900 telephone numbers directed at children, and is now behind the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The same questions raised nearly 30 years ago by ACT are now being cast in the US in terms of the Internet, otherwise little has changed. Each new innovation in media and technology ushers similar questions to the table, and the same balancing act must again be employed to answer the basic question: how far do we go to protect our children? The US's answer to this question offers insights for other countries seeking answers to similar questions.

No abstract