MKT354: Create and develop a brand management strategy for an IMAGINARY brand Including the Development of Brand Name and Logo: Brand Management Report, SUSS, Singapore

Learning outcomes

Upon completing the module you should be able to:
1. Demonstrate a clear understanding of brands and brand strategy
2. Critically review brand management theories
3. Analyse different foundations that are used to value brands
4. Formulate, evaluate and justify brand development decisions
5. Critically evaluate the role of the marketing mix in supporting successful brands
6. Demonstrate creativity and inventiveness

Lecture topics
1. Introduction to Brands and Brand Management
2. Beyond the Functionalism of a Brand
3. Brand Equity
4. Brand Positioning
5. Brand Extension and Secondary Associations in Branding
6. Branding and Consumers
7. Service and B2B Branding
8. Advertising and Digital Branding
9. International Branding Strategy
10.Brand Crisis

Create and develop a brand management strategy for an IMAGINARY brand including the development of brand name and logo. The report should reflect how the brand will be developed, sustained and taken to an overseas market.

• To assess individual contribution and participation, you will be asked to fill in an online peer assessment form.

Gentle giant or elitist bully? Intended and realised stakeholders’
perceptions of the Olympic brand personality

Introduction

The Olympic Games (OG) have grown to become the world’s most appealing sports events, with about 4.3 billion people have watched at least one minute of the Beijing Olympics (Ferrand et al., 2012). Television aids this global reach, with for example the Sochi Olympics producing more than 1,300 hours of coverage, globally broadcasted in over 200 countries (International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2014a).

Subsequently, the Olympic brand (OB) is one of the world’s best-known brands, with an average assisted recognition of 94 per cent (Ferrand et al., 2012). The unique combination of sport, heritage and modernity differentiates the OB from others, culminating in a brand that includes hope, dreams and inspiration, friendship, fair play and joy in effort (Payne, 2012).

However, the OG is also criticised for aspects that contrast with the Olympic ideals, such as commercialism, doping and scandals (Milton-Smith, 2002; Séguin et al., 2008; Tavares, 2006). Such views undermine and damage the OB, for disparities between intended brand personality (how brand management would like consumers to perceive the brand’s personality) and realised brand personality (consumers’ actual perception of the brand’s personality) can result in negative consequences for the brand (Malär et al., 2012).

Based on this premise, this paper aims to investigate the congruency between the OG intended brand personality as presented by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the governing body of the Olympic brand (Ferrand et al., 2012), and its realised brand personality from various stakeholders’ perspectives.. Interviews employing a projective technique and personification metaphors were conducted for the purpose of the study with 16 Olympic stakeholders.

Brand personality

Aaker (1997) defines brand personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (p. 47). By determining the number and nature of dimensions of brand personality, Aaker (1997) developed a theoretical framework of the brand personality construct and a measurement scale to measure its five dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness).

Since its introduction, Aaker’s brand-personality scale has been used by many practitioners and academics alike. However, Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) state that Aaker’s (1997) definition is too global and thereby possibly embraces concepts beyond those of brand personality, as there are more aspects to brand identity than personality alone and human characteristics, such as inner values or physical traits, can also be associated with a brand. Therefore, Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) propose the following definition: “Brand personality is the set of human personality traits that are both applicable and relevant for brands” (p. 151).

Plummer (2000) defines personality as “the way individuals react fairly consistently to a variety of environmental situations” (p. 79). As such, personality is perceived through behaviour. This concept can be transferred to brands as well, for consumers can endow brands with personality according to perceived communication (Plummer, 2000), behaviours (Azoulay & Kapferer,2003) and the total set of brand-related activities engaged by the firm (Park et al., 1986).

Any direct or indirect contact with the brand can influence the consumer’s perception of the brand’s personality traits (Plummer, 1985 in Aaker, 1997). Personality traits are connected with a brand in a direct way via the people related to the brand, such as employees, endorsers or typical user
imagery.

Indirectly, product-related attributes, price, product category associations, brand name, symbol, distribution channel etc. can also lead to consumers associating certain personality traits with a brand (Aaker, 1997).
Studies have found that a favourable brand personality has positive implications on consumer attitudes, purchase intentions, trust and loyalty (e.g. Freling et al., 2011; Malär et al., 2012; Sung & Kim, 2010).

It can help give meaning to the brand in the consumer’s eyes (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003), differentiate the brand from others (Halliday, 1996) and drive consumer preference and usage (Biel, 1993).

Furthermore, the more the human characteristics endowed on a brand align with an individual’s actual or ideal self, the more that individual will prefer that particular brand (Aaker, 1997). Therefore, to ensure that consumers perceive the brand as intended, marketing managers carefully define their intended brand personality and invest extensive resources into brand-related marketing activities (Burnett & Hutton 2007).

Many organisations have clear notions of how their personalities should be perceived but are often unsuccessful in communicating this due to, for example, inattentive management or failed execution (Malär et al., 2012). The intended brand personality can only be perceived right after successful implementation, and therefore consumers may not always perceive the brand personality as intended (ibid).

This is also influenced by the consumers’ experience, misconceptions, perceptions and the noise in the system (Plummer, 2000). As such, differences regularly occur in what practitioners want consumers to think and feel, and what consumers actually do think and feel.

Although some authors have attempted to evaluate the OG brand personality (Davis, 2008; Kaplanidou & Potwarka, 2014), a specific study that compares the OG intended and realised brand personality from various stakeholders’ perspectives does not yet exist. Therefore, we believe that the current paper can fill in the knowledge gap in the event and sports branding literature. The following section will evaluate the intended brand personality of OG as communicated by the IOC.

Olympic brand personality

The IOC (2010) state that the OG originate from the strong Olympic philosophy, which places sport at the service of humankind. This philosophy of life, also known as Olympism, consists of five working principles, namely universality, solidarity, collaboration, autonomy and social responsibility.

These working principles translate into the three core values, which are friendship, excellence and respect. Together, these values and principles lay the foundation for a strong mission, which is to ensure the regular celebration of OG, to educate youth through sport and to promote Olympism in society. This translates into the vision to contribute to building a better world through sports (IOC, 2010).

The OG, presented in the form of the Olympic Summer Games (OSG), Olympic Winter Games (OWG) and Youth Olympic Games (YOG) express the Olympic ideology (Theodoraki, 2007) and help bring the Olympic values to life (IOC, 2010). By changing location every four years, the OG literally spread Olympism around the world (Roche, 2000).

It is the strong foundation in Olympism that has evolved the OG from athletic competition to a worldwide phenomenon that transcends its origin in sport (Davis, 2008). As such, the OG provide a global platform where men and women from different countries, cultures, religions and ethnic groups unite to compete in an environment of fair play and goodwill, reminding us of our common humanity (IOC, 2010).

The Olympic Rings portray the unification of the five continents and the meeting of athletes from around the world (IOC, 2013a), thereby symbolising the value of respect (The Olympic Museum (TOM), 2007). The motto ‘Citius, Altius, Fortius’ (Faster, Higher, Stronger) expresses the OM’s aspirations (IOC, 2013a). In combination with the Olympic Creed, which is: “the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the fight; the essential thing is not to have won, but to have fought well” (TOM, 2007, p. 5), the motto embodies excellence by encouraging athletes to strive to do their best (TOM, 2007).

The flame, plus the associated lighting ritual, the torch and the relay route, exemplifies friendship, for it travels and connects people around the world (ibid). Together, these three aspects convey the meaning and values of Olympism in a simple and direct manner (ibid) and demonstrate how closely Olympic features and values are connected.

Other elements that can generate associations are the Olympic Emblem, which acts as a logo for each individual edition; Olympic Anthem; Athletes’ Oath; mascots, which help engage a younger audience by adding an element of humour and joy to the Olympic experience (IOC, 2013b); medals; posters; Olympic flag, which is the Olympic symbol on a white background (TOM, 2007) and all communications (Plummer, 2000), behaviours (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003) and brand-related activities (Park et al., 1986).

However, the Olympics are also often associated with doping, commercialisation, ‘cronyism’ during preparation stages, corruption, and highly developed nations having advantages over others (Milton-Smith, 2002). Séguin et al. (2008) also identified that decreasing brand strength could be a result of a lack of marketing expertise in the IOC, National Olympic Committees (NOC) and Organising Committees of the Olympic Games (OCOG); failure to live up to the brand promise; politicisation; a self-centred attitude of the IOC; and the abundance of commercial associations (whether they are official or ambush), as these cause a lack of consistency and thereby weaken the brand (Séguin et al., 2008).

Furthermore, Tavares (2006) indicates that the Olympic organisation is often criticised for shifting focus towards sports and the Olympics spectacle, while decreasingly reflecting its historically proposed values. Preuss et al. (2014) surveyed the opinions of Olympic scholars and professional experts on the Olympic ideals and found that the OB could be improved if the focus on the Olympic values is increased.

Moreover, the Olympic ideals are subject to culturally diverse meanings and values in the contemporary world (Chatziefstathiou, 2005). As such, various scholars (i.e. Chatziefstathiou, 2005; Clarke, 1988; Lekarska, 1988; Wassong, 2009) debate whether the values are still relevant. Possibly, a modern interpretation is necessary to ensure their relevance in today’s culture in a convincing way (Wassong, 2009). Either way, actions perceived to betray the Olympic values undermine and damage the OB (Milton-Smith, 2002, Séguin et al., 2008).

Exploring the congruence between the OG’s realised brand personality perceived by stakeholders and the intended brand personality communicated by the IOC can provide insights into this aspect of the brand’s conflicting personality. The research design utilised in this study to explore the congruence is discussed below.

Research methods

Qualitative research in researching brand image is a natural choice, as pre-structured scales or questionnaires limit participants in expressing their relevant views completely (Hofstede et al., 2007). For the purpose of this study, 16 semi-structured qualitative interviews were held with different stakeholders of the OB between July and November 2014 to collect rich data.

Participants were selected via snowball sampling (Saunders et al., 2012). The stakeholder groups involved in this study were the general public, athletes, scholars, OCOG employees, employees of a supplier of a NOC, a member of a NOC, volunteers, residents, live spectators, TV spectators, IOC Commission members, International Federation members (IFs) and consultants for OCOGs and OG bid cities. Some participants performed multiple roles during one or various OG. The mean duration of the interview was 1 hour, 7 minutes and 47 seconds.