The regulatory challenge to branding: An interpretation of UK competition authority investigations 1950–2007

Abstract

This study examines if, and how, branding constitutes an anticompetitive act. These questions are assessed through an examination of UK competition cases undertaken over the period 1950-2007. From this assessment it is observed that branding can facilitate excessive pricing, requires vertical restraints, and can lead to consumer confusion. Competition cases focused on branding issues are demonstrably different from cases without branding concerns and involve larger, often manufacturing, firms, which operate in more concentrated markets. It is concluded that competition law needs to be disseminated more widely amongst business communities. This will require greater prominence for competition policy within business school syllabi and greater reference to business and management theory on the part of competition law agencies would assist the comprehension of business techniques such as branding.

History and critical marketing studies

“…The problem was that close-firm relationships might transgress legal boundaries -especially when formalised through trade associations and statistical information providers -leading to price collusion. Such attempts to control the market were sometimes effective (Palmer, 2001;Tadajewski, , 2010c, sometimes not (Fitzgerald, 2000(Fitzgerald, , 2005 see also Ashton and Pressey, 2011). But what each of these entail are power relations that we should not dismiss and a "chorus of critics" (Grether, 1966) did arise which levelled a challenge at marketing theory and industry practices (e.g.…”

7 Fairtrade Towns: A Community Based Social Marketing Perspective in Promoting Ethical Consumption

“…Advertising usually takes the blame and faces criticism and regulatory enforcements but it is important to recognise that the branding strategy is at the heart of all marketing communications. To counter the regulations on advertising, corporates have turned toward branding as it imposes a greater challenge for regulatory authorities to objectify and regulate brand misconduct (Ashton & Pressey, 2011). Target market selection is also contested to have significant ethical implications (Rittenburg & Parthasarathy, 1997).…”

“…It includes restrictive distribution agreements for prime shelf space, full line forcing, sole distribution and change in retail atmosphere to reflect the brand image. Also, buying agreements with component manufacturers enforcing usage of their brand name in component manufacturing and, consequently, eclipsing corporate reputation of suppliers is a testimony of brands executing their power over supply chain partners (Ashton & Pressey, 2011). Starbucks efforts to suppress Ethiopian coffee producers' trademark applications through industry lobbyists, depriving them of the value they are generating, is not just a matter of exploiting supply partners, it questions the ethical and moral credibility of the corporate where, despite producing a highly valued commodity, Starbucks' brand power have denied them the freedom from poverty and starvation (Adamy & Thurow, 2007;Faris, 2007).…”

Systematic Theory Mapping: Deciphering Causal Complexity of Brand Externalities

“…Brand misconduct involving these stakeholders triggers brand value destruction beyond the consumer-brand dyad. For instance, exerting brand hegemony in the brand value chain may deteriorate commercial relations with suppliers and retailers (Ashton and Pressey 2011). Exploiting workers causes employee burnout and reduces their subjective well-being (Ritzer 2004).…”

“…Employee burnout activates negative employee perceptions and engagement, causing deviant employee behaviors which spill over to the consumer-brand and other organizational relationships . Anti-competitive acts, such as commanding excessive prices, creating artificial barriers to entry, or artificial resource scarcity, cause severe regulatory challenges and stakeholder disempowerment (Ashton and Pressey 2011).…”