Brand meaning gaps and dynamics: theory, research, and practice

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.

How Do Consumers See Firms’ Family Nature? A Review of the Literature

“…Furthermore, the articles also showed that what consumers perceive and appreciate most about family firms relates to their ability to establish and maintain relational bonds with their customers (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008;Presas et al, 2014). The same meanings were also revealed in empirical studies that focused on family-based brands, where brand values such as consistency, enduring commitment, integrity, and attention to creating strong bonds with stakeholders were underlined (Krappe et al, 2011;Peters & Frehse, 2011;Wilson et al, 2014). Thus, most of the meanings attached to family firms have positive valence, and only a few studies disclosed negative consumer perceptions, such as the limited product selection and price/value in retail (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008;Orth & Green, 2009).…”

“…The quantitative papers generally adopted a psychological and cognitive perspective to identifying the attributes consumers attached to family-owned firms compared to non-family-owned ones (e.g., Beck & Kenning, 2015;Beck & Prügl, 2018;Binz Astrachan et al, 2013;Orth & Green, 2009;Sageder et al, 2015;Schellong, Kraiczy, Malär, & Hack, 2019). The qualitative papers were mainly interested in unveiling consumers' perceptions and the meanings relating to the relationships and face-to-face interactions between consumers and members of family businesses (see Carrigan & Buckley, 2008;Krappe et al, 2011;Lyman, 1991;Presas, Guia, & Muñoz, 2014;Wilson, Bengtsson, & Curran, 2014).…”

Umbrella-Canopy as an Icon of Braga Permai Restaurant in Bandung

“…Based on the results, it is concluded that people today still perceive umbrella-canopy as an icon of Braga Permai. Although not every visitor understands the history of the restaurant [19,20,21], but the where and how the umbrella-canopies are located have made them iconic.…”

Five areas to advance branding theory and practice

“…This represents a research gap in studying the combining effects of institutions and organizational capabilities, which influence opportunity identification and exploitation (Lubatkin et al, 2006;Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997;Wilson et al, 2014). In our research, we aim to fill this research gap by linking firms' organizational ambidexterity, brand reputation, and brand performance and further posit a dual ambidextrous emphasis on firms' exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies through the mediating effects of brand reputation.…”