Brand Architecture - A View of Practitioners - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

arleen
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Brand Architecture - A View of Practitioners PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Brand Architecture - A View of Practitioners

play fullscreen
1 / 17
Download Presentation
Brand Architecture - A View of Practitioners
458 Views
Download Presentation

Brand Architecture - A View of Practitioners

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

    1. As a result of mergers and acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, the introduction of new products and services etc., the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems. Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the view of practitioners on different brand architecture strategies. In this study practitioners of 53 mainly internationally operating companies identify their branding strategy, evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future. As a result of mergers and acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, the introduction of new products and services etc., the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems. Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the view of practitioners on different brand architecture strategies. In this study practitioners of 53 mainly internationally operating companies identify their branding strategy, evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future.

    2. The presentation is structured as follows: First I would like to give you a overview of the basic brand architecture strategies, with two examples from our qualitative study, in order to show the complexity of brand architecture decisions in practice. Secondly we will turn to the objectives of the study an the composition of the sample before I will present the limitations of the study. Finally I will invite you to a lively discussion. Before I begin with the main topic of my presentation I would like to say a few words, why brand architecture gets more and more important in recent years. For example in 1934 the Volkswagen Corporation offered only one car brand - the Beetle. Now, in 2003 Volkswagen operates world-wide with an expanded brand portfolio, which includes not only the brand Volkswagen with the subbrands New Beetle, Jetta, Golf, Passat, Touareg, Phaeton etc., but also Seat, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, Bugatti and Lamborghini. The rising number of brands is mainly caused by mergers & acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, technological breakthroughs, an increasing heterogeneity of consumer demand and the introduction of new products and services. As a result of this increasing complexity the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1999, Kapferer 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999, Erdem 1998, Morrin 1999, Park et al. (a) 1986 (b) 1989, Sullivan 1990, Schweiger and Schrattenecker 2001). Therefore, many companies are currently streamlining their brand portfolio.The presentation is structured as follows: First I would like to give you a overview of the basic brand architecture strategies, with two examples from our qualitative study, in order to show the complexity of brand architecture decisions in practice. Secondly we will turn to the objectives of the study an the composition of the sample before I will present the limitations of the study. Finally I will invite you to a lively discussion. Before I begin with the main topic of my presentation I would like to say a few words, why brand architecture gets more and more important in recent years. For example in 1934 the Volkswagen Corporation offered only one car brand - the Beetle. Now, in 2003 Volkswagen operates world-wide with an expanded brand portfolio, which includes not only the brand Volkswagen with the subbrands New Beetle, Jetta, Golf, Passat, Touareg, Phaeton etc., but also Seat, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, Bugatti and Lamborghini. The rising number of brands is mainly caused by mergers & acquisitions, indirect brand extensions using subbrands, technological breakthroughs, an increasing heterogeneity of consumer demand and the introduction of new products and services. As a result of this increasing complexity the management of brand architecture has become one of the most important brand-related problems (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1999, Kapferer 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999, Erdem 1998, Morrin 1999, Park et al. (a) 1986 (b) 1989, Sullivan 1990, Schweiger and Schrattenecker 2001). Therefore, many companies are currently streamlining their brand portfolio.

    3. Definition of brand architecture So what do we mean when we talk over brand architecture. Let me begin with a definition of brand architecture: By Aaker and Joachimstaler we understand brand architecture as. an organizing structure of the brand portfolio that specifies the brand roles and the relationships among brands (Ford and Taurus) and different product-market brand contexts (Nike Europe vs. Nike U.S.). Brand architecture is defined by the brand portfolio, portfolio roles, product-market context roles and the portfolio structure. The first term of the definition refers to the existing brand portfolio of a company, i.e. all brands and subbrands offered on different geographical markets to different target groups. By assigning roles to the brands of the portfolio roles it becomes possible to get a systems view of the brand portfolio with strategic brands, poor dogs, image brand and cash cow brands. Given the different possible levels of brand architecture, a firm has a number of branding options available to it. The company may have one brand for all products offered for different geographical markets and target groups. Its also possible to provide individual brands for each market, product category and target group, so that the company offers different independent brands from a customers point of view. A mixture of these two strategies would be a family brand whereby one brand stands for some of the target groups, geographical markets and product categories of the company. The second part of the definition of Aaker/Joachimstaler deals with the relationships between the brands, not only from the companys point of view, but also of the customers point of view. Following this definition we can say that unlimited combinations of brand architecture strategies are possible, but certain types are typically, as we can see on the next slide, the classification of different brand architecture strategies. (Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand. poor dog Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty. image brand Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand. Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.) Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the practitioners view of different brand architecture strategies. Previous research has identified frequent forms of brand architecture strategy (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999 and Kapferer 1998.) Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) propose a continuum which ranges from the House of Brands strategy to the Branded House strategy. Keller (1998) differentiates between corporate dominant, mixed brand and brand dominant strategy. Similarly a study of Laforet and Saunders (1999) revealed three major patterns of brand architecture: corporate-dominant, product-dominant and hybrid or mixed structures. In the following, we use the classification of Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) who defined four basic strategies: the house of brands, endorsed brands, subbrands under a master brand and a branded house. A branded house uses a single master brand such as Nike or Sony with the subbrands having no or little importance. A company following a house of brands strategy offers many independent, i.e. from a consumers point of view, unconnected brands (e.g. Procter & Gamble, Unilever). An endorsed brand is independent, like the house of brands, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. Subbrands are closer to their master brand than endorsed brands and they often add relevant associations to the master brand. So what do we mean when we talk over brand architecture. Let me begin with a definition of brand architecture: By Aaker and Joachimstaler we understand brand architecture as. an organizing structure of the brand portfolio that specifies the brand roles and the relationships among brands (Ford and Taurus) and different product-market brand contexts (Nike Europe vs. Nike U.S.). Brand architecture is defined by the brand portfolio, portfolio roles, product-market context roles and the portfolio structure. The first term of the definition refers to the existing brand portfolio of a company, i.e. all brands and subbrands offered on different geographical markets to different target groups. By assigning roles to the brands of the portfolio roles it becomes possible to get a systems view of the brand portfolio with strategic brands, poor dogs, image brand and cash cow brands. Given the different possible levels of brand architecture, a firm has a number of branding options available to it. The company may have one brand for all products offered for different geographical markets and target groups. Its also possible to provide individual brands for each market, product category and target group, so that the company offers different independent brands from a customers point of view. A mixture of these two strategies would be a family brand whereby one brand stands for some of the target groups, geographical markets and product categories of the company. The second part of the definition of Aaker/Joachimstaler deals with the relationships between the brands, not only from the companys point of view, but also of the customers point of view. Following this definition we can say that unlimited combinations of brand architecture strategies are possible, but certain types are typically, as we can see on the next slide, the classification of different brand architecture strategies. (Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand. poor dog Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty. image brand Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand. Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.) Based on a qualitative study with senior brand managers and brand consultants this paper analyses the practitioners view of different brand architecture strategies. Previous research has identified frequent forms of brand architecture strategy (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000, Keller 1998, Laforet and Saunders 1999 and Kapferer 1998.) Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) propose a continuum which ranges from the House of Brands strategy to the Branded House strategy. Keller (1998) differentiates between corporate dominant, mixed brand and brand dominant strategy. Similarly a study of Laforet and Saunders (1999) revealed three major patterns of brand architecture: corporate-dominant, product-dominant and hybrid or mixed structures. In the following, we use the classification of Aaker and Joachimstaler (2000) who defined four basic strategies: the house of brands, endorsed brands, subbrands under a master brand and a branded house. A branded house uses a single master brand such as Nike or Sony with the subbrands having no or little importance. A company following a house of brands strategy offers many independent, i.e. from a consumers point of view, unconnected brands (e.g. Procter & Gamble, Unilever). An endorsed brand is independent, like the house of brands, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. Subbrands are closer to their master brand than endorsed brands and they often add relevant associations to the master brand.

    4. In this presentation I will use the classification of brand architecture strategies according to Kevin Lane Keller, who distinguishes between 3 basic strategies: the corporate dominant strategy, the mixed brand strategy, and the brand dominant strategy. The mixed brand strategy is split up by Keller in the dual brand strategy and the endorsed brand strategy. The corporate dominant strategy means that the corporate name is supreme and applied across a range of product lines, and communications tend to reinforce the corporate image e.g. Xerox. One master brand is used with the subbrands having no or little importance. If a company uses a brand dominant strategy, the decision has been made not to relate brand and corporate names e.g. Marlboro, Phillip Morris. From a customer's point of view the company offers different, unconnected brands like P&G or Unilever In the case of a mixed brand strategy the individual brand is sometimes dominant and sometimes the corporate name is dominant. In some cases they are used together with equal emphasis. The relative prominence of the brand elements determines the importance of the brands, i.e. that one time the main product positioning and the usp is shown by the primary brand. The secondary brand element is often used to support the primary brand or to add some additional value. IN the case of the endorsed brand the brands offered by a company are independent, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. The dual brand strategy means that the subbrands are closer linked with their master brand and they often add relevant associations to the master brand. The mixed brand strategies are the most complex forms of brand architecture strategies. The different kinds of brand architecture strategies involve different advantages and disadvantages, mainly in the case of brand extensions. I mentioned some authors who are engaged in brand architecture strategies and their pros and cons. In this presentation I will use the classification of brand architecture strategies according to Kevin Lane Keller, who distinguishes between 3 basic strategies: the corporate dominant strategy, the mixed brand strategy, and the brand dominant strategy. The mixed brand strategy is split up by Keller in the dual brand strategy and the endorsed brand strategy. The corporate dominant strategy means that the corporate name is supreme and applied across a range of product lines, and communications tend to reinforce the corporate image e.g. Xerox. One master brand is used with the subbrands having no or little importance. If a company uses a brand dominant strategy, the decision has been made not to relate brand and corporate names e.g. Marlboro, Phillip Morris. From a customer's point of view the company offers different, unconnected brands like P&G or Unilever In the case of a mixed brand strategy the individual brand is sometimes dominant and sometimes the corporate name is dominant. In some cases they are used together with equal emphasis. The relative prominence of the brand elements determines the importance of the brands, i.e. that one time the main product positioning and the usp is shown by the primary brand. The secondary brand element is often used to support the primary brand or to add some additional value. IN the case of the endorsed brand the brands offered by a company are independent, but an organizational brand often helps to provide credibility and reassurance to the buyer in the background. The dual brand strategy means that the subbrands are closer linked with their master brand and they often add relevant associations to the master brand. The mixed brand strategies are the most complex forms of brand architecture strategies. The different kinds of brand architecture strategies involve different advantages and disadvantages, mainly in the case of brand extensions. I mentioned some authors who are engaged in brand architecture strategies and their pros and cons.

    5. Comparison of two competitors - using a totally different brand architecture strategy despite a comparable structure of their store brand and private labels portfolio I will now show an example of two chain store companies operating in the pan-European and international food retailing industry. These are case studies of the sample. Despite the comparable structure of their store and retail brands the companies are using totally different brand architecture strategies. Whereas the German REWE Group showed on the left side of the slide uses a clear brand dominant strategy the Austrian Spar Organisation showed on the right side of the slide has a mixed strategy and simultaneously a corporate dominant brand strategy in the case of the store brands. The Rewe Group offers unconnected store brands for different target groups in different pricing segments. E.g. Mondo operates in the discount area, billa and emma in the supermarket and merkur in the hypermarket area. Bipa stands for modern drug stores. In contrast to the REWE-Group the Spar Organisation integrates the corporate brand spar in every store brand; one time like an endorser in the case of spar gourmet, one time as a brand dominant and three times (europar, despar and interspar) a dual brand strategy is used. On the next level, the retail brand level of the food retailing stores the REWE Group on the left side of the slide shows a continuous brand product strategy, with the retail brands ja!, which stands for a premium segment biological cultivation brand, clever and quality line which cover the low-price segment or chef men for convenience goods. The Spar Organisation on the right side of the slide has as well as in the case of the store brands a mixed strategy on the retail brand level. I.e. in the case of food products the corporate brand spar is integrated in the brands one time as an endorser like in the case of feine Kche and frisch und fertig convenience product brands, or the biological cultivation brand natur pur , sometimes as a dual brand like in the case of interspar weinwelt a vine distribution and sometimes the spar organisation, in the case of the non-food sector with sun lotion, pet food or detergence, a brand dominant strategy is used. Recapitulatory we can say, that the REWe-Group has a clear brand dominant strategy on the store brand level as well as on the retail brand level, whereas the Spar-Organisation has a triple mixed strategy with brand dominant, mixed brand and corporate dominant brand architecture strategies. The reason for the different brand architecture strategies of these two case studies is caused by historical events, i.e. in the case of the rewe group by mergers and acquisitions and in the spar organization is a trade association whereby the collective wants to see the brand, which they are paying for regarding advertising efforts. I will now turn to the next point of my presentation, the objectives and results of the qualitative study. REWE-Countries: Activities in Germany and other European countries (Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Ukraine and Bulgaria.) The 29 SPAR Countries:1932: Niederlande 1947: Belgien 1953: Deutschland 1954: Dnemark 1954: sterreich 1955: Frankreich 1956: Grobritannien 1959: Spanien 1959: Italien 1962: Finnland 1963: Sdafrika 1963: Irland 1966: Zimbabwe 1969: Griechenland 1977: Japan 1982: Argentinien 1984: Norwegen 1989: Schweiz 1990: Schweden 1992: Slowenien 1992: Ungarn 1992: Tschechien 1994: Australien 1995: Polen 1997: Litauen 2000: Russia 2000: Mauritius 2002: Zypern 2002: Ukraine I will now show an example of two chain store companies operating in the pan-European and international food retailing industry. These are case studies of the sample. Despite the comparable structure of their store and retail brands the companies are using totally different brand architecture strategies. Whereas the German REWE Group showed on the left side of the slide uses a clear brand dominant strategy the Austrian Spar Organisation showed on the right side of the slide has a mixed strategy and simultaneously a corporate dominant brand strategy in the case of the store brands. The Rewe Group offers unconnected store brands for different target groups in different pricing segments. E.g. Mondo operates in the discount area, billa and emma in the supermarket and merkur in the hypermarket area. Bipa stands for modern drug stores. In contrast to the REWE-Group the Spar Organisation integrates the corporate brand spar in every store brand; one time like an endorser in the case of spar gourmet, one time as a brand dominant and three times (europar, despar and interspar) a dual brand strategy is used. On the next level, the retail brand level of the food retailing stores the REWE Group on the left side of the slide shows a continuous brand product strategy, with the retail brands ja!, which stands for a premium segment biological cultivation brand, clever and quality line which cover the low-price segment or chef men for convenience goods. The Spar Organisation on the right side of the slide has as well as in the case of the store brands a mixed strategy on the retail brand level. I.e. in the case of food products the corporate brand spar is integrated in the brands one time as an endorser like in the case of feine Kche and frisch und fertig convenience product brands, or the biological cultivation brand natur pur , sometimes as a dual brand like in the case of interspar weinwelt a vine distribution and sometimes the spar organisation, in the case of the non-food sector with sun lotion, pet food or detergence, a brand dominant strategy is used. Recapitulatory we can say, that the REWe-Group has a clear brand dominant strategy on the store brand level as well as on the retail brand level, whereas the Spar-Organisation has a triple mixed strategy with brand dominant, mixed brand and corporate dominant brand architecture strategies. The reason for the different brand architecture strategies of these two case studies is caused by historical events, i.e. in the case of the rewe group by mergers and acquisitions and in the spar organization is a trade association whereby the collective wants to see the brand, which they are paying for regarding advertising efforts. I will now turn to the next point of my presentation, the objectives and results of the qualitative study. REWE-Countries: Activities in Germany and other European countries (Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Ukraine and Bulgaria.) The 29 SPAR Countries:1932: Niederlande 1947: Belgien 1953: Deutschland 1954: Dnemark1954: sterreich 1955: Frankreich 1956: Grobritannien 1959: Spanien1959: Italien 1962: Finnland 1963: Sdafrika 1963: Irland 1966: Zimbabwe1969: Griechenland1977: Japan 1982: Argentinien 1984: Norwegen 1989: Schweiz 1990: Schweden 1992: Slowenien 1992: Ungarn 1992: Tschechien 1994: Australien 1995: Polen 1997: Litauen 2000: Russia 2000: Mauritius 2002: Zypern 2002: Ukraine

    6. Objectives of the study Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of different types of brand architecture strategies by practitioners regarding - consumer market capital market labor market employees (corporate culture) Identifying brand roles in the brand portfolio Finding out key factors influencing the brand architecture strategy Collection and description of case studies regarding brand architecture strategies With this qualitative study we wanted to collect case-studies concerning different brand architecture strategies in order to compare different brand architecture strategies in certain factors. So first of all we wanted to know if the responsible brand managers are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of their own companys brand architecture strategy. An additional intension regarding the pros and cons of the brand architecture strategy was to find out, if brand managers do only think in terms of consumer markets or if they also consider other important target markets, like the capital or the labor market or their employees. In the qualitative study we furthermore included questions concerning the roles of the brands in the companys brand portfolio and possible factors influencing the brand architecture strategy of the company now or in future.With this qualitative study we wanted to collect case-studies concerning different brand architecture strategies in order to compare different brand architecture strategies in certain factors. So first of all we wanted to know if the responsible brand managers are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of their own companys brand architecture strategy. An additional intension regarding the pros and cons of the brand architecture strategy was to find out, if brand managers do only think in terms of consumer markets or if they also consider other important target markets, like the capital or the labor market or their employees. In the qualitative study we furthermore included questions concerning the roles of the brands in the companys brand portfolio and possible factors influencing the brand architecture strategy of the company now or in future.

    7. Objectives regarding the sample Respondents from advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies with regard to their clients brand architecture strategy. Let me now turn to the objectives when planning the sample. First of all we wanted to have different industries not only to get general statements but also to compare the different industries. Another aim when electing the companies was to get headquarters as well as subsidiaries to find out who is responsible for strategic brand management. The most important point was to have different kinds of typical brand architecture strategies to characterize them in terms of advantages and disadvantages. If possible we tried to get two different respondents within a company in order to compare different perceptions concerning the brand architecture strategy of the company and the last aim when considering the sample was to ask external partner companies, like advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research companies about the brand architecture of their clients company. We interviewed these external companies on reference of the focal company. Let me now turn to the objectives when planning the sample. First of all we wanted to have different industries not only to get general statements but also to compare the different industries. Another aim when electing the companies was to get headquarters as well as subsidiaries to find out who is responsible for strategic brand management. The most important point was to have different kinds of typical brand architecture strategies to characterize them in terms of advantages and disadvantages. If possible we tried to get two different respondents within a company in order to compare different perceptions concerning the brand architecture strategy of the company and the last aim when considering the sample was to ask external partner companies, like advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research companies about the brand architecture of their clients company. We interviewed these external companies on reference of the focal company.

    8. Sample profile Cumulative coverage of the Austrian economy as measured by number of employees: about 10% (320.000 of 3.1 mio. employed population in Austria Method 53 qualitative face-to-face interviews were carried out during February and August 2002. The interviews consisted of mainly open-ended questions and on average took 82,2 minutes. The sample of companies includes 33 mainly internationally operating companies in the areas of fast moving consumer goods (13 companies, e.g. McDonalds, Unilever, Procter&Gamble, Red Bull), durables (8, e.g. Hewlett Packard, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Sony) and the service industry (12, e.g. Allianz, Austrian Airlines, Microsoft, Europay). To compare the perceptions of different respondents of diverse branches, i.e. the headquarter and a subsidiary, four companies were interviewed twice. The respondents operate mainly on the senior management, marketing department and strategic staff unit level, with the majority (65%) being between 31 and 45 years old; 84% of them were male. The respondents were asked to identify their branding strategy evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and to specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future. In addition to the 33 companies, we asked 16 other persons (working in advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research agencies) with regard to their clients brand architecture strategy, the focal company always being one of those from which an internal view had been assessed previously. When drawing the sample of companies, we looked for variety in branding strategy, the degree of internationalisation and industry was taken into account. The brand architecture strategies were assessed according to a coding scheme by four individual coders. Discrepancies were solved by discussion. The advantages and disadvantages of the different branding strategies allocated by the respondents were categorised by two independent coders, as well as deciders and external influencers on the brand architecture strategy. The results of the explorative study are to generate hypothesis as the basis for further quantitative research projects. Die Stichprobe setzte sich aus 37 Markenverantwortliche in Unternehmen zusammen, 9 Verantwortliche in Agenturen und 7 in Beratungs und Marktforschungunternehmen zusammen, die im Zeitraum von Februar bis September 2002 durchschnittlich etwas mehr als 80 Minuten befragt wurden. Die Interviews wurden hauptschlich in sterreich durchgefhrt, wobei je ein Interview in D bzw. Ungarn durchgefhrt wurde. Die Position im Unternehmen der Befragten war hauptschlich Markenverantwortlicher der Marktingabteilung/-leistung und des Brand Magagements, weiters befanden sich noch 6 Verantwortliche auf Geschftsfhrungsebene in der Stichprobe. Bei den externen Agenturen, Beratungs- und Marktforschungsunternehmen wurden jeweils die fr das Kundenunternehmen Veranwortlichen befragt. Wenn mglich fand eine Befragung von mehreren Personen unterschiedlicher Hierarchiebenen bzw. Funktionsbereiche statt, um unterschiedliche Sichtweisen im Unternehmen zu erfassen was in 4 Fllen realisiert werden konnte. Die Sicht externer Partner wurde in insgesamt 16 Fllen zum Unternehmen eingeholt. Die Streuung nach Branche erfolgte nach 3 Kategorien: Gebrauchsgter mit 8 Unternehmen, Verbrauchsgter (13) und Dienstleistungsbetriebe (12) Cumulative coverage of the Austrian economy as measured by number of employees: about 10% (320.000 of 3.1 mio. employed population in Austria Method 53 qualitative face-to-face interviews were carried out during February and August 2002. The interviews consisted of mainly open-ended questions and on average took 82,2 minutes. The sample of companies includes 33 mainly internationally operating companies in the areas of fast moving consumer goods (13 companies, e.g. McDonalds, Unilever, Procter&Gamble, Red Bull), durables (8, e.g. Hewlett Packard, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Sony) and the service industry (12, e.g. Allianz, Austrian Airlines, Microsoft, Europay). To compare the perceptions of different respondents of diverse branches, i.e. the headquarter and a subsidiary, four companies were interviewed twice. The respondents operate mainly on the senior management, marketing department and strategic staff unit level, with the majority (65%) being between 31 and 45 years old; 84% of them were male. The respondents were asked to identify their branding strategy evaluate its advantages and disadvantages, and to specify persons as well as the departments and factors affecting the brand architecture strategy in future. In addition to the 33 companies, we asked 16 other persons (working in advertising agencies, consulting companies and market research agencies) with regard to their clients brand architecture strategy, the focal company always being one of those from which an internal view had been assessed previously. When drawing the sample of companies, we looked for variety in branding strategy, the degree of internationalisation and industry was taken into account. The brand architecture strategies were assessed according to a coding scheme by four individual coders. Discrepancies were solved by discussion. The advantages and disadvantages of the different branding strategies allocated by the respondents were categorised by two independent coders, as well as deciders and external influencers on the brand architecture strategy. The results of the explorative study are to generate hypothesis as the basis for further quantitative research projects. Die Stichprobe setzte sich aus 37 Markenverantwortliche in Unternehmen zusammen, 9 Verantwortliche in Agenturen und 7 in Beratungs und Marktforschungunternehmen zusammen, die im Zeitraum von Februar bis September 2002 durchschnittlich etwas mehr als 80 Minuten befragt wurden. Die Interviews wurden hauptschlich in sterreich durchgefhrt, wobei je ein Interview in D bzw. Ungarn durchgefhrt wurde. Die Position im Unternehmen der Befragten war hauptschlich Markenverantwortlicher der Marktingabteilung/-leistung und des Brand Magagements, weiters befanden sich noch 6 Verantwortliche auf Geschftsfhrungsebene in der Stichprobe. Bei den externen Agenturen, Beratungs- und Marktforschungsunternehmen wurden jeweils die fr das Kundenunternehmen Veranwortlichen befragt. Wenn mglich fand eine Befragung von mehreren Personen unterschiedlicher Hierarchiebenen bzw. Funktionsbereiche statt, um unterschiedliche Sichtweisen im Unternehmen zu erfassen was in 4 Fllen realisiert werden konnte. Die Sicht externer Partner wurde in insgesamt 16 Fllen zum Unternehmen eingeholt. Die Streuung nach Branche erfolgte nach 3 Kategorien: Gebrauchsgter mit 8 Unternehmen, Verbrauchsgter (13) und Dienstleistungsbetriebe (12)

    9. This slides provides an overview of the interviewed companies having brands. So we tried to get a variation regarding heaquarters giving guidelines and subsidiaries mainly getting guidelines. The sample includes: Austrian subsidiaries of internationally operating companies: Mercedes, Sony, McD, Siemens, HP, P&G, VW, Sony, Elektrolux, Allianz (insurance company), Bacardi, Microsoft, Mercedes, AUA, Eurocard, Henkel, Unilever, SCA (hygiene industry), Don Gil (clothing), Lindt&Sprngli (chocolate company), REWE Group (food retailer) Headquaters : Erste Bank, OMV (petrol and mineral oil provider), Red Bull, Austria Tabak (tobacco company) Austrian companies providing infrastructure.: BB (public transport company), Post (mail company) Austrian Specialities: RQ (sparkling water), Darbo (jam selling company), Nm (Austrian diary products), Spar (Austrian retailer ) Furthermore we included external advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies in the sample in order to get to know the external sight of view; especially because of conflicts of persons responsible for brand architecture. Sample of advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies with regard to their client's brand architecture strategy We had internationally operating consultants and advertising agencies in the sample like BBDO, Ogilvy, J. Walter Thompson, Saatchi & Saatchi, Research International, Karmasin Marktforschung and national as well as lokal, Austrian advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies: Haslinger Keck, For Sale, Marketmind, Sensor, GfK, This slides provides an overview of the interviewed companies having brands. So we tried to get a variation regarding heaquarters giving guidelines and subsidiaries mainly getting guidelines. The sample includes: Austrian subsidiaries of internationally operating companies: Mercedes, Sony, McD, Siemens, HP, P&G, VW, Sony, Elektrolux, Allianz (insurance company), Bacardi, Microsoft, Mercedes, AUA, Eurocard, Henkel, Unilever, SCA (hygiene industry), Don Gil (clothing), Lindt&Sprngli (chocolate company), REWE Group (food retailer) Headquaters : Erste Bank, OMV (petrol and mineral oil provider), Red Bull, Austria Tabak (tobacco company) Austrian companies providing infrastructure.: BB (public transport company), Post (mail company) Austrian Specialities: RQ (sparkling water), Darbo (jam selling company), Nm (Austrian diary products), Spar (Austrian retailer ) Furthermore we included external advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies in the sample in order to get to know the external sight of view; especially because of conflicts of persons responsible for brand architecture. Sample of advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies with regard to their client's brand architecture strategy We had internationally operating consultants and advertising agencies in the sample like BBDO, Ogilvy, J. Walter Thompson, Saatchi & Saatchi, Research International, Karmasin Marktforschung and national as well as lokal, Austrian advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies: Haslinger Keck, For Sale, Marketmind, Sensor, GfK,

    10. 9 of 33 companies were categorized as using a branded house strategy, 6 companies an endorsed brand strategy, 11 companies a subbrands under a master brand strategy and 7 companies a house of brands strategy. The main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). In addition to the internal influence on brand architecture strategy it is external advertising agencies which give direction to the development of the branding strategy (41%). In the qualitative questionnaire we asked the senior marketing/brand manager about the type of the companys brand architecture strategy. Therefore we used illustrations because no standard terms for the brand architecture strategies are used in practice. The research team consisted of 3 persons, two of them coded the data independently. Disagreement was resolved by discussion/by a third coder. After the assignment of the senior marketing manager to the different brand architecture strategies, not only these 37 respondents of the companies were asked to state the advantages and disadvantages of the companys brand architecture strategy, but also the external persons responsible for the companys brand architecture. I.e. respondents from the adverting agencies, brand consultants and market research companies were asked about the pros and cons of the clients companys brand architecture strategy. The question regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the brand architecture strategies was an open ended question. After categorising the data a correspondence analysis we made a correspondence analysis. A correspondence analysis (see figure 1) of the categorised responses (sample size = 53) produced two dimensions in which the first was labeled integration (containing the items: consistence, stability, uniform brand communication, lower communications costs, certain target segments not reachable, cross-sectoral know how, low flexibility, slow reaction to changes) vs. flexibility (reaching niche markets, flexible and rapid reaction to changes). The second dimension was labeled synergy (internal or external synergies) vs. interaction (transfer of image, cannibalisation). The first dimension explains 63% of variance; the second 26%. The correspondence analysis (see figure 1) shows that the corporate dominant strategy can be found on the first dimension identity. This strategy allows the use of external synergies, mainly because of the uniform brand communication and the lower communication costs. The brand dominant strategy is regarded as flexible (because of unconnected brands), showing synergies; but in this case mainly internal synergies (e.g. production, distribution, etc.). From the analysis arises that the dual brand strategy has neither a value at the dimension flexibility nor at identity, because of the master brand providing identity (stability, consistence) and the subbrands offering flexibility. Since there is a strong master brand it is considered as interactive, i.e. not only positive or negative image transfer, but also cannibalisation has an impact on this strategy. The endorsed brand strategy with subbrands having only little connection to the master brand are regarded as flexible because of independent brands and the possibility to act on niche markets, but the organisational brand in the background may cause interaction including image transfer and cannibalisation. Die generierten Antworten der Experten, d.h. die Zuordnung der Vor- und Nachteile zu den unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien aus den Markenartikelunternehmen, Agenturen, Marktforschungs- und Beratungsunternehmen wurden dann einer Korrespondenzanalyse unterzogen, um auf statistischem Weg die Unterschiedlichkeiten der Markenstrategien anhand von Profilen erklren zu knnen und gemeinsame Dimensionen aufdecken zu knnen. D.h. wenn bestimmte Vor- und Nachteile hufig gemeinsam zugeordnet wurden, so ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit grer, dass diese Gruppe von Items eine Dimension reprsentiert. Die Darstellung zeigt das Ergebnis der durchgefhrten Korrespondenzanalyse, die mit den Antworten von 52 Praktikern durchgefhrt wurde. (Korrespondenztabelle: siehe Word Dokument Korrestabelle_Prs_Pfingsttagung. Euklid`sches Distanzma verwendet) Abbildung 48 stellt die Items (Vor- und Nachteile) dar, welche die Dimensionen beschreiben und zeigt wie hoch ihr Beitrag zur Erklrung der Dimension ist. Des weiteren ist aus Abbildung 48 abzulesen, welche Markenstrategien durch welche Vor- und Nachteile am besten beschrieben werden und welche Markenstrategien sich in ihren Ausprgungen hnlich sind. Die erste Dimension erklrt den hchsten Anteil der Unterschiedlichkeit zwischen den Markenstrategien (rund 63%), die zweite Dimension mit 26% und die dritte mit 11%. Dimension 1: Identitt vs. Flexibilitt erklrt 63% der Varianz Die Achsenbezeichnung Identitt (im +) wird von den Items Kontinuitt, Stabilitt, bereichsbergreifendes Know-How, Kommunikation billig, einheitlicher Auftritt gewisse Marktsegmente nicht bearbeitbar und wenig flexibel, schnell getragen. Dem gegenber steht die Flexibilitt (im -) wobei die Items flexibel, schnell reagieren, Nischensegmente gut bearbeitbar und Kostenfaktor hoch beschreibend wirken. Dimension 2: Synergie vs. Interaktion Das Item gemeinsame Synergien trgt hier als einziger Faktor zur Achsenbezeichnung Synergie (im +) bei. Dem gegenber stehen die Items positive Imagebertragung, Kannibalisierung und Kostenfaktor hoch (im -). (3. Dimension: Dimension 3: Verbund vs. Garantie Aufgrund der bersichtlichkeit wurde die dritte Dimension in Abbildung 47 nicht dargestellt; sie ist aber der Ladungsmatrix (Tabelle 10) zu entnehmen. Diese Dimension erhlt auf der einen Seite (im +) die Bezeichnung Verbund", wobei die Items "gemeinsame Synergien, "starke Marke(n)", Innovationen besser verwertbar" und negative Imagebertragung beschreibend sind. Als Achsenbezeichnung (im -) wurde der Ausdruck Garantie" gewhlt, der durch die Items Konsumenten vertrauen in die Marke", Gre und Strke zeigen" und durch das Item komplexe Markenstruktur" reprsentiert wird. Die erste Dimension eignet sich sehr gut fr die Beschreibung der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 1,021) sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (- 0,630). Die Unternehmnesmarkenstrategie wird gut durch die Achsenbezeichnung Identitt getragen. Die Kontinuitt und Stabilitt, der einheitliche Auftritt und die billige Kommunikation werden somit vor allem dieser Markenarchitektur zugeordnet. Die Einzelmarkenstrategie zeigt sich als flexibel und bietet eine gute Bearbeitbarkeit von Nischensegmenten. Hier zeigen sich jedoch auch hohe Kosten, d.h. man knnte feststellen: Flexibilitt ist teuer. Die GM mit dominanten Einzel- bzw. Familienmarken (- 0,328) zeigt ebenfalls eine Tendenz in Richtung Flexibilitt, was durch die relativ unabhngigen Einzelmarken dieser Strategie erklrbar ist, die nur schwach an eine Referenzmarke gebunden sind. Die GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,062) lsst keine Ausprgung auf der ersten Dimension erkennen, da sie sowohl Identitt durch die starke Referenzmarke vermittelt, als auch eine gewisse Flexibilitt durch die eigenstndigen Bereichsmarken. Aus der Darstellung ist ersichtlich, dass bei der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 0,297), sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (+ 0,591) Synergiepotentiale bestehen. Diese Synergien zeigen sich bei der Dachmarke vor allem in der Kommunikation, whrend bei der Bereichsmarkenstrategie interne Synergien genutzt werden knnen (z.B. Produktion, Vertrieb). Der Fall der GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,744) sieht auf den ersten Blick verwunderlich aus, da drei gnzlich verschiedene Items diese Dimension beschreiben. Wenn man allerdings die GM mit dominanter Unternehmnesmarke betrachtet, kommt man zu dem Ergebnis, dass sowohl positive Imagebertragungseffekte aufgrund einer starken Hauptmarke mglich sind, als auch eine Kannibalisierung zwischen den Einzelmarken besteht. Um diese Kannibalisierung zu verhindern, entstehen hohe Kosten. Eine Tendenz in Richtung Interaktion ist auch bei der GM mit Einzel/Familienmarkendominanz (- 0,126) zu erkennen, da auch hier die Einzelmarken mit der schwachen Referenzmarke verbunden werden und somit auch die Kannibalisierungsgefahr zwischen den Bereichsmarken besteht (allerdings viel schwcher als bei der dominanten Unternehmensmarke). Die Dachmarkenstrategie (- 0,001) zeigt keine Ausprgung in der dritten Dimension. Die starke Orientierungsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,359) geht in Richtung Verbund, da gemeinsame interne und externe Synergien der Bereichsmarken genutzt werden knnen und somit auch Innovationen bei einer Marke auf die andere bertragen werden knnen. Es zeigt sich auch die Strke der Referenzmarke und die damit verbundene Gefahr der negativen Imagebertragung durch den starken Bezug zur Hauptmarke. hnlich verhlt sich die Bereichsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,311), die eine etwas geringere Ausprgung auf der 3. Dimension besitzt. Hier kommen vor allem die starken Marken zum Ausdruck, sowie die bereichsmarkenbergreifenden Innovationen und Synergien. Die schwache Orientierungsmarke (- 0,668) zeigt eine starke Ausprgung auf der dritten Dimension in Richtung Garantie, wobei das Konsumentenvertrauen durch die Referenzmarke hervorgerufen wird, die die Vertrauenswrdigkeit der einzelnen Bereichsmarken vermittelt. Ganz deutlich ist hier auch die Komplexitt der schwachen Orientierungsmarkenstrategie ersichtlich.) Die Vor- und Nachteile auf anderen Mrkten: Die + und der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt wurden von den Apn berlegt zugeordnet. Teilweise wegen Marketingabteilung: Marketingsichtweise, weniger Personal, Mitarbeiter, Da dies ex-ante erwartet wurde, wurde zustzlich im Fragebogen Satzergnzungstests gemacht: nach den + und auf anderen wichtigen Zielmrkten gefragt, z.B. am Kapitalmarkt, den Mitarbeitern, dem Arbeitsmarkt oder der Distribution. 9 of 33 companies were categorized as using a branded house strategy, 6 companies an endorsed brand strategy, 11 companies a subbrands under a master brand strategy and 7 companies a house of brands strategy. The main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). In addition to the internal influence on brand architecture strategy it is external advertising agencies which give direction to the development of the branding strategy (41%). In the qualitative questionnaire we asked the senior marketing/brand manager about the type of the companys brand architecture strategy. Therefore we used illustrations because no standard terms for the brand architecture strategies are used in practice. The research team consisted of 3 persons, two of them coded the data independently. Disagreement was resolved by discussion/by a third coder. After the assignment of the senior marketing manager to the different brand architecture strategies, not only these 37 respondents of the companies were asked to state the advantages and disadvantages of the companys brand architecture strategy, but also the external persons responsible for the companys brand architecture. I.e. respondents from the adverting agencies, brand consultants and market research companies were asked about the pros and cons of the clients companys brand architecture strategy. The question regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the brand architecture strategies was an open ended question. After categorising the data a correspondence analysis we made a correspondence analysis. A correspondence analysis (see figure 1) of the categorised responses (sample size = 53) produced two dimensions in which the first was labeled integration (containing the items: consistence, stability, uniform brand communication, lower communications costs, certain target segments not reachable, cross-sectoral know how, low flexibility, slow reaction to changes) vs. flexibility (reaching niche markets, flexible and rapid reaction to changes). The second dimension was labeled synergy (internal or external synergies) vs. interaction (transfer of image, cannibalisation). The first dimension explains 63% of variance; the second 26%. The correspondence analysis (see figure 1) shows that the corporate dominant strategy can be found on the first dimension identity. This strategy allows the use of external synergies, mainly because of the uniform brand communication and the lower communication costs. The brand dominant strategy is regarded as flexible (because of unconnected brands), showing synergies; but in this case mainly internal synergies (e.g. production, distribution, etc.). From the analysis arises that the dual brand strategy has neither a value at the dimension flexibility nor at identity, because of the master brand providing identity (stability, consistence) and the subbrands offering flexibility. Since there is a strong master brand it is considered as interactive, i.e. not only positive or negative image transfer, but also cannibalisation has an impact on this strategy. The endorsed brand strategy with subbrands having only little connection to the master brand are regarded as flexible because of independent brands and the possibility to act on niche markets, but the organisational brand in the background may cause interaction including image transfer and cannibalisation. Die generierten Antworten der Experten, d.h. die Zuordnung der Vor- und Nachteile zu den unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien aus den Markenartikelunternehmen, Agenturen, Marktforschungs- und Beratungsunternehmen wurden dann einer Korrespondenzanalyse unterzogen, um auf statistischem Weg die Unterschiedlichkeiten der Markenstrategien anhand von Profilen erklren zu knnen und gemeinsame Dimensionen aufdecken zu knnen. D.h. wenn bestimmte Vor- und Nachteile hufig gemeinsam zugeordnet wurden, so ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit grer, dass diese Gruppe von Items eine Dimension reprsentiert. Die Darstellung zeigt das Ergebnis der durchgefhrten Korrespondenzanalyse, die mit den Antworten von 52 Praktikern durchgefhrt wurde. (Korrespondenztabelle: siehe Word Dokument Korrestabelle_Prs_Pfingsttagung. Euklid`sches Distanzma verwendet) Abbildung 48 stellt die Items (Vor- und Nachteile) dar, welche die Dimensionen beschreiben und zeigt wie hoch ihr Beitrag zur Erklrung der Dimension ist. Des weiteren ist aus Abbildung 48 abzulesen, welche Markenstrategien durch welche Vor- und Nachteile am besten beschrieben werden und welche Markenstrategien sich in ihren Ausprgungen hnlich sind. Die erste Dimension erklrt den hchsten Anteil der Unterschiedlichkeit zwischen den Markenstrategien (rund 63%), die zweite Dimension mit 26% und die dritte mit 11%. Dimension 1: Identitt vs. Flexibilitt erklrt 63% der Varianz Die Achsenbezeichnung Identitt (im +) wird von den Items Kontinuitt, Stabilitt, bereichsbergreifendes Know-How, Kommunikation billig, einheitlicher Auftritt gewisse Marktsegmente nicht bearbeitbar und wenig flexibel, schnell getragen. Dem gegenber steht die Flexibilitt (im -) wobei die Items flexibel, schnell reagieren, Nischensegmente gut bearbeitbar und Kostenfaktor hoch beschreibend wirken. Dimension 2: Synergie vs. Interaktion Das Item gemeinsame Synergien trgt hier als einziger Faktor zur Achsenbezeichnung Synergie (im +) bei. Dem gegenber stehen die Items positive Imagebertragung, Kannibalisierung und Kostenfaktor hoch (im -). (3. Dimension: Dimension 3: Verbund vs. Garantie Aufgrund der bersichtlichkeit wurde die dritte Dimension in Abbildung 47 nicht dargestellt; sie ist aber der Ladungsmatrix (Tabelle 10) zu entnehmen. Diese Dimension erhlt auf der einen Seite (im +) die Bezeichnung Verbund", wobei die Items "gemeinsame Synergien, "starke Marke(n)", Innovationen besser verwertbar" und negative Imagebertragung beschreibend sind. Als Achsenbezeichnung (im -) wurde der Ausdruck Garantie" gewhlt, der durch die Items Konsumenten vertrauen in die Marke", Gre und Strke zeigen" und durch das Item komplexe Markenstruktur" reprsentiert wird. Die erste Dimension eignet sich sehr gut fr die Beschreibung der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 1,021) sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (- 0,630). Die Unternehmnesmarkenstrategie wird gut durch die Achsenbezeichnung Identitt getragen. Die Kontinuitt und Stabilitt, der einheitliche Auftritt und die billige Kommunikation werden somit vor allem dieser Markenarchitektur zugeordnet. Die Einzelmarkenstrategie zeigt sich als flexibel und bietet eine gute Bearbeitbarkeit von Nischensegmenten. Hier zeigen sich jedoch auch hohe Kosten, d.h. man knnte feststellen: Flexibilitt ist teuer. Die GM mit dominanten Einzel- bzw. Familienmarken (- 0,328) zeigt ebenfalls eine Tendenz in Richtung Flexibilitt, was durch die relativ unabhngigen Einzelmarken dieser Strategie erklrbar ist, die nur schwach an eine Referenzmarke gebunden sind. Die GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,062) lsst keine Ausprgung auf der ersten Dimension erkennen, da sie sowohl Identitt durch die starke Referenzmarke vermittelt, als auch eine gewisse Flexibilitt durch die eigenstndigen Bereichsmarken. Aus der Darstellung ist ersichtlich, dass bei der Unternehmensmarkenstrategie (+ 0,297), sowie der Einzelmarkenstrategie (+ 0,591) Synergiepotentiale bestehen. Diese Synergien zeigen sich bei der Dachmarke vor allem in der Kommunikation, whrend bei der Bereichsmarkenstrategie interne Synergien genutzt werden knnen (z.B. Produktion, Vertrieb). Der Fall der GM mit dominanter Unternehmensmarke (- 0,744) sieht auf den ersten Blick verwunderlich aus, da drei gnzlich verschiedene Items diese Dimension beschreiben. Wenn man allerdings die GM mit dominanter Unternehmnesmarke betrachtet, kommt man zu dem Ergebnis, dass sowohl positive Imagebertragungseffekte aufgrund einer starken Hauptmarke mglich sind, als auch eine Kannibalisierung zwischen den Einzelmarken besteht. Um diese Kannibalisierung zu verhindern, entstehen hohe Kosten. Eine Tendenz in Richtung Interaktion ist auch bei der GM mit Einzel/Familienmarkendominanz (- 0,126) zu erkennen, da auch hier die Einzelmarken mit der schwachen Referenzmarke verbunden werden und somit auch die Kannibalisierungsgefahr zwischen den Bereichsmarken besteht (allerdings viel schwcher als bei der dominanten Unternehmensmarke). Die Dachmarkenstrategie (- 0,001) zeigt keine Ausprgung in der dritten Dimension. Die starke Orientierungsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,359) geht in Richtung Verbund, da gemeinsame interne und externe Synergien der Bereichsmarken genutzt werden knnen und somit auch Innovationen bei einer Marke auf die andere bertragen werden knnen. Es zeigt sich auch die Strke der Referenzmarke und die damit verbundene Gefahr der negativen Imagebertragung durch den starken Bezug zur Hauptmarke. hnlich verhlt sich die Bereichsmarkenstrategie (+ 0,311), die eine etwas geringere Ausprgung auf der 3. Dimension besitzt. Hier kommen vor allem die starken Marken zum Ausdruck, sowie die bereichsmarkenbergreifenden Innovationen und Synergien. Die schwache Orientierungsmarke (- 0,668) zeigt eine starke Ausprgung auf der dritten Dimension in Richtung Garantie, wobei das Konsumentenvertrauen durch die Referenzmarke hervorgerufen wird, die die Vertrauenswrdigkeit der einzelnen Bereichsmarken vermittelt. Ganz deutlich ist hier auch die Komplexitt der schwachen Orientierungsmarkenstrategie ersichtlich.) Die Vor- und Nachteile auf anderen Mrkten: Die + und der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt wurden von den Apn berlegt zugeordnet. Teilweise wegen Marketingabteilung: Marketingsichtweise, weniger Personal, Mitarbeiter, Da dies ex-ante erwartet wurde, wurde zustzlich im Fragebogen Satzergnzungstests gemacht: nach den + und auf anderen wichtigen Zielmrkten gefragt, z.B. am Kapitalmarkt, den Mitarbeitern, dem Arbeitsmarkt oder der Distribution.

    11. A majority of the respondents identified the important role of strong brands not only on the consumer market, but also for attracting shareholders and highly qualified employees. Moreover, strong brands and efficient brand architecture have positive effects regarding distribution partners, the corporate culture and the motivation of employees. The respondents were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different brand architecture strategies on the consumer market but responses regarding pros and cons on other markets were only stated on request of the interviewer. We included open ended questions Fragestellungen: Unsere Markenstrategie verstrkt unsere Position am Arbeitsmarkt weil (ist wichtig fr unsere Mitarbeiter/manche Mitarbeiter wrden sich eine Markenstrategie wnschen weil) Bei den Geldgebern bzw. am Kapitalmarkt hlt man unsere Markenarchitektur weil/am Kapitalmarkt sieht man in unserer Markenstrategie gewisse Nachteile weil... Unsere Markenstrategie bereitet uns teilweise Probleme am Arbeitsmarkt weil 1. Dachmarkenunternehmen: nur eine Marke Einzelmarkenstrategie Dachmarke A majority of the respondents identified the important role of strong brands not only on the consumer market, but also for attracting shareholders and highly qualified employees. Moreover, strong brands and efficient brand architecture have positive effects regarding distribution partners, the corporate culture and the motivation of employees. The respondents were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different brand architecture strategies on the consumer market but responses regarding pros and cons on other markets were only stated on request of the interviewer. We included open ended questions Fragestellungen: Unsere Markenstrategie verstrkt unsere Position am Arbeitsmarkt weil (ist wichtig fr unsere Mitarbeiter/manche Mitarbeiter wrden sich eine Markenstrategie wnschen weil) Bei den Geldgebern bzw. am Kapitalmarkt hlt man unsere Markenarchitektur weil/am Kapitalmarkt sieht man in unserer Markenstrategie gewisse Nachteile weil... Unsere Markenstrategie bereitet uns teilweise Probleme am Arbeitsmarkt weil 1. Dachmarkenunternehmen: nur eine Marke Einzelmarkenstrategie Dachmarke

    12. 94% (29 of 31) of the companies have at least one silver bullet usually pointed out in advertising but often no sales driver 90% (26 of 29) have strategic brands that are supported by the company (may be identical with the silver bullet of the company) 63% (17 of 27) of the companies have cash-cows in their brand portfolio 88% (22 of 25) believe that their brand portfolio as a whole is more valuable for the company compared to the sum of brand equity of single brands Roles of brands in the brand portfolio A further result of the study showed that 94% of the interviewed companies own one brand bearing a more positive image than any other brand in the portfolio. This brand is not necessarily the one generating the largest part of turnover or profit. 90% of the companies hold a strategic brand, in terms of image market position or future importance. 63% of the respondents defined a brand in the companys portfolio as a cash-cow. Aaker terminology: (Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand. poor dog Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty. image brand Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand. Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.) Roles of brands in the brand portfolio A further result of the study showed that 94% of the interviewed companies own one brand bearing a more positive image than any other brand in the portfolio. This brand is not necessarily the one generating the largest part of turnover or profit. 90% of the companies hold a strategic brand, in terms of image market position or future importance. 63% of the respondents defined a brand in the companys portfolio as a cash-cow. Aaker terminology: (Strategic brand = a brand that represents a meaningful future level of sales and profits. The brand should grow and become a major brand. poor dog Linchpin brand = is the leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the company, it will indirectly influence a business area by providing a basis for customer loyalty. image brand Silver bullet = a brand or subbrand that positively influences the image of another brand. Cash cow brand = is a brand with a significant customer base that does not require the investment that other portfolio brands require. The sales may be stagnant this brand should generate margin resources that can be invested in some other brand of the porfolio.)

    13. Asked for the main influence on future brand architecture, the respondents perceived the globalization (77%), new findings of market research (77%), mergers and acquisitions (74%), changes regarding consumer trends (71%), changes in the target market (71%), competitors (65%) and technological changes (62%) the most influential factors on brand architecture. These findings confirm factors identified by other authors (Shocker et al. 1994). Further factors Asked for the main influence on future brand architecture, the respondents perceived the globalization (77%), new findings of market research (77%), mergers and acquisitions (74%), changes regarding consumer trends (71%), changes in the target market (71%), competitors (65%) and technological changes (62%) the most influential factors on brand architecture. These findings confirm factors identified by other authors (Shocker et al. 1994). Further factors

    14. Some Hypotheses resulting from the study Only the corporate dominant strategy and the brand dominant strategy are planned by the company. Mixed brand architecture strategies are often path-dependent (mergers & acquisitions, purchase of competitive brands,). The advantages and disadvantages of different brand architecture strategies are aware in respect of the consumer market. Pros and cons on other important target markets, like the labor and capital market, regarding the employees and distributors are conscious but only on request. The respondents of the companies consider a lot of influential factors on the brand architecture strategy (globalization, changing consumer trends,), nevertheless 70% (23 of 33) believe that their brand architecture strategy will not be modified within the next 5 years. Advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies forecast an internationalization of the brand architecture of their clients and a rising complexity of the brand architecture management. For their own future they feel more pressure of operating internationally. The brand portfolio of the companies is actively managed. Detailed analysis of many case studies with a semi-structured questionnaire Variability of the sample in terms the sector, brand architecture strategy and headquarter/subsidiary Multiple informants in respect of the brand architecture strategy of the focal company Guidance for future quantitative research Punkt 1: Die beiden Pole der Markenarchitektur, die Einzel- und Unternehmensmarkenstrategie werden vom Unternehmen langfristig aufgebaut und beibehalten. Bei den komplexen Markenarchitekturen hat sich lt. Auskunft der Experten die Struktur der Marken im Unternehmensportfolio aufgrund von Marken- bzw. Unternehmensbernahmen, des historischen Wachstums der Marken oder durch Ausrutscher in der Markenfhrung ergeben. Hier fehlt es somit oft an systematischem Markenarchitekturmanagment. Punkt 2 + 3: Die Funktionen der Marken im Markenportfolio sind den befragten Experten sehr bewusst und werden aktiv gemanagt. 94 % der Unternehmen haben mindestens einen Imagetrger, der in der Regel in der Kommunikation hervorgehoben wird, aber oft nicht bedeutendster Umsatzbringer ist. 90 % haben strategische Marken, die vom Unternehmen besonders gefrdert werden => diese knnen, mssen aber nicht ident sein mit dem/n Imagetrger/n 63 % der befragten Unternehmen haben Cash-Cows im Markenportfolio 88 % sind der Meinung, dass ihr Gesamtmarkenportfolios mehr wert ist, als die Summe der einzelnen Marken 82 % denken, dass sie vor allem durch Vertrauen und Image Kundenbindung erreichen. Ebenso sind den Befragten die Vor- und Nachteile der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt bewusst. Die Vor- und Nachteile, die die Marke fr andere Faktormrkte (Arbeitsmarkt, Mitarbeiter, Kapitalmarkt, Distribution) bringt, sind den Experten zwar bewusst, werden allerdings erst auf Nachfrage genannt. Punkt 4: Bei der Frage, wie die Markenstrategie des eigenen Unternehmens in ca. 5 Jahren aussehen knnte, wird trotz vieler Einflussfaktoren, die lt. den befragten Experten aus den Markenartikelunternehmen die Markenarchitektur beeinflussen knnten, glauben 70% (23) der Interviewpartner, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur beibehalten wird, 24% (8), denken, dass sie anders aussehen wird, nmlich aufgrund der Reduktion von Marken, Unternehmensbernahmen, Markenbeziehungsvernderungen und Integration unter ein Markendach. 6% (2) der Befragten waren sich nicht sicher, ob eine Vernderung der Markenarchitektur innerhalb der nchsten 5 Jahre ntig sein wird. 70 % (26 von 37) der befragten Markenartikelexperten meinen, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur des Unternehmens in Zukunft beibehalten und konsequent durchgefhrt werden wird. Auf der anderen Seite sind sie sich der Dynamik des Marktes und vieler Einflussfaktoren auf die Marken-strategie bewusst. Als Haupteinflussfaktoren auf die Markenstrategie werden v.a. die Globalisierung (77% = 26 Befragte), neue Marktforschungserkenntnisse (77%), Unternehmensbernahmen (74% = 25), Vernderung der Konsumententrends (71% = 24), Vernderung der ZG-Merkmale (68% = 23), brancheneigene Konkurrenz (65% = 22), technologische Umbrche (62% = 21), neue Medien (59% = 20), gesetzliche nderungen (59% = 20), Konjunkturschwankungen der Weltwirtschaft (53% = 18), Geldgeber, Kapitalmarkt (53%), Unternehmenskultur (53%), branchenfremde Unternehmen (41% = 14), Weltpolitik (35% = 12), Arbeitsmarkt (32% = 11), Umweltproblematik (29% = 10), Interessensvertretungen (24% = 8), Erwartungen des Handels (24% = 8) Die 16 befragten externen Partnerbetriebe der Markenartikelunternehmen sind sich bewusst, dass die einzelnen Marken, auch wenn sie von unterschiedlichen Beratungsunternehmen bzw. Agenturen betreut werden einer Rcksichtnahme bedrfen (Aufgrund Kannibalisierung, Positionierungsabstimmung, d.h. sie sind sich ihrer Verantwortung bewusst, nur 2 der 16 Personen finden keine Abstimmung der Marken im Portfolio ntig. 9 von 16 Personen meinten, dass es einen Trend zu globalen Marken geben wird (weil Unternehmensgre nimmt zu, Kostensynergien, Vereinheitlichung mglich,), 1 Person lokale Marken und 6 beides je nach Branche. Trend Richtung Einzelmarken (4, bessere Marktabdeckung, ZG-Ansprache, aber steigende Markenzahl,), sowohl Dach als auch Einzelmarken (4), Trend zur Dachmarke (3). Only the corporate dominant strategy and the brand dominant strategy are planned by the company. Mixed brand architecture strategies are often path-dependent (mergers & acquisitions, purchase of competitive brands,). The advantages and disadvantages of different brand architecture strategies are aware in respect of the consumer market. Pros and cons on other important target markets, like the labor and capital market, regarding the employees and distributors are conscious but only on request. The respondents of the companies consider a lot of influential factors on the brand architecture strategy (globalization, changing consumer trends,), nevertheless 70% (23 of 33) believe that their brand architecture strategy will not be modified within the next 5 years. Advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies forecast an internationalization of the brand architecture of their clients and a rising complexity of the brand architecture management. For their own future they feel more pressure of operating internationally. The brand portfolio of the companies is actively managed. Detailed analysis of many case studies with a semi-structured questionnaire Variability of the sample in terms the sector, brand architecture strategy and headquarter/subsidiary Multiple informants in respect of the brand architecture strategy of the focal company Guidance for future quantitative research Punkt 1: Die beiden Pole der Markenarchitektur, die Einzel- und Unternehmensmarkenstrategie werden vom Unternehmen langfristig aufgebaut und beibehalten. Bei den komplexen Markenarchitekturen hat sich lt. Auskunft der Experten die Struktur der Marken im Unternehmensportfolio aufgrund von Marken- bzw. Unternehmensbernahmen, des historischen Wachstums der Marken oder durch Ausrutscher in der Markenfhrung ergeben. Hier fehlt es somit oft an systematischem Markenarchitekturmanagment. Punkt 2 + 3: Die Funktionen der Marken im Markenportfolio sind den befragten Experten sehr bewusst und werden aktiv gemanagt. 94 % der Unternehmen haben mindestens einen Imagetrger, der in der Regel in der Kommunikation hervorgehoben wird, aber oft nicht bedeutendster Umsatzbringer ist. 90 % haben strategische Marken, die vom Unternehmen besonders gefrdert werden => diese knnen, mssen aber nicht ident sein mit dem/n Imagetrger/n 63 % der befragten Unternehmen haben Cash-Cows im Markenportfolio 88 % sind der Meinung, dass ihr Gesamtmarkenportfolios mehr wert ist, als die Summe der einzelnen Marken 82 % denken, dass sie vor allem durch Vertrauen und Image Kundenbindung erreichen. Ebenso sind den Befragten die Vor- und Nachteile der unterschiedlichen Markenstrategien auf dem Absatzmarkt bewusst. Die Vor- und Nachteile, die die Marke fr andere Faktormrkte (Arbeitsmarkt, Mitarbeiter, Kapitalmarkt, Distribution) bringt, sind den Experten zwar bewusst, werden allerdings erst auf Nachfrage genannt. Punkt 4: Bei der Frage, wie die Markenstrategie des eigenen Unternehmens in ca. 5 Jahren aussehen knnte, wird trotz vieler Einflussfaktoren, die lt. den befragten Experten aus den Markenartikelunternehmen die Markenarchitektur beeinflussen knnten, glauben 70% (23) der Interviewpartner, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur beibehalten wird, 24% (8), denken, dass sie anders aussehen wird, nmlich aufgrund der Reduktion von Marken, Unternehmensbernahmen, Markenbeziehungsvernderungen und Integration unter ein Markendach. 6% (2) der Befragten waren sich nicht sicher, ob eine Vernderung der Markenarchitektur innerhalb der nchsten 5 Jahre ntig sein wird. 70 % (26 von 37) der befragten Markenartikelexperten meinen, dass die derzeitige Markenstruktur des Unternehmens in Zukunft beibehalten und konsequent durchgefhrt werden wird. Auf der anderen Seite sind sie sich der Dynamik des Marktes und vieler Einflussfaktoren auf die Marken-strategie bewusst. Als Haupteinflussfaktoren auf die Markenstrategie werden v.a. die Globalisierung (77% = 26 Befragte), neue Marktforschungserkenntnisse (77%), Unternehmensbernahmen (74% = 25), Vernderung der Konsumententrends (71% = 24), Vernderung der ZG-Merkmale (68% = 23), brancheneigene Konkurrenz (65% = 22), technologische Umbrche (62% = 21), neue Medien (59% = 20), gesetzliche nderungen (59% = 20), Konjunkturschwankungen der Weltwirtschaft (53% = 18), Geldgeber, Kapitalmarkt (53%), Unternehmenskultur (53%), branchenfremde Unternehmen (41% = 14), Weltpolitik (35% = 12), Arbeitsmarkt (32% = 11), Umweltproblematik (29% = 10), Interessensvertretungen (24% = 8), Erwartungen des Handels (24% = 8) Die 16 befragten externen Partnerbetriebe der Markenartikelunternehmen sind sich bewusst, dass die einzelnen Marken, auch wenn sie von unterschiedlichen Beratungsunternehmen bzw. Agenturen betreut werden einer Rcksichtnahme bedrfen (Aufgrund Kannibalisierung, Positionierungsabstimmung, d.h. sie sind sich ihrer Verantwortung bewusst, nur 2 der 16 Personen finden keine Abstimmung der Marken im Portfolio ntig. 9 von 16 Personen meinten, dass es einen Trend zu globalen Marken geben wird (weil Unternehmensgre nimmt zu, Kostensynergien, Vereinheitlichung mglich,), 1 Person lokale Marken und 6 beides je nach Branche. Trend Richtung Einzelmarken (4, bessere Marktabdeckung, ZG-Ansprache, aber steigende Markenzahl,), sowohl Dach als auch Einzelmarken (4), Trend zur Dachmarke (3).

    15. Limitations However, the previously mentioned results suffer from some limitations (judgement sample) of companies ? no conclusion regarding the population Quantitative Research Building a clear and consistent brand architecture is an essential task for a companys market strategy. An effective brand architecture helps to ensure that the value of the companys brands is maximised across markets and that cost efficiency can be achieved. This study presents a valuable contribution to the parties involved in brand management. It showed that the main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). The results of the questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different brand strategies showed a partial agreement between the theoretical approaches and the view of practitioners knowledge, but the new and most interesting finding of the study is the result of the correspondence analysis showing the dimensions identity vs. flexibility and synergy vs. interaction. These dimensions show that every branding strategy involves a clear set of advantages and disadvantages. The findings provide an enlargement of the theoretical knowledge of brand architecture, not only in the area of people and factors influencing the branding strategy but also regarding the strategic roles in the brand portfolio. The study supplements the theoretical point of view with the opinions and experiences of practitioners. However, one limitation of this research is the use of a relatively small sample size; therefore results can not be generalised. In addition to that, the interviews were accomplished with international operating companies, limited to subsidiaries or headquarters in Germany and Austria. This qualitative study should serve as basis for quantitative future research. Befragungen durchwegs in . : wir haben wohl HQ sterreichischer Mittelbetriebe in der Stichprobe, aber keine Headquarter international ttiger Unternehmen, die ev. anders laufen. However, the previously mentioned results suffer from some limitations (judgement sample) of companies ? no conclusion regarding the population Quantitative Research Building a clear and consistent brand architecture is an essential task for a companys market strategy. An effective brand architecture helps to ensure that the value of the companys brands is maximised across markets and that cost efficiency can be achieved. This study presents a valuable contribution to the parties involved in brand management. It showed that the main responsibility for the strategic handling of the brands and the management of the brand architecture strategy is borne by the marketing management (84% of the respondents), the management/board of directors (76%) and, in the case of internationally, operating companies by the headquarter (62%). The results of the questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different brand strategies showed a partial agreement between the theoretical approaches and the view of practitioners knowledge, but the new and most interesting finding of the study is the result of the correspondence analysis showing the dimensions identity vs. flexibility and synergy vs. interaction. These dimensions show that every branding strategy involves a clear set of advantages and disadvantages. The findings provide an enlargement of the theoretical knowledge of brand architecture, not only in the area of people and factors influencing the branding strategy but also regarding the strategic roles in the brand portfolio. The study supplements the theoretical point of view with the opinions and experiences of practitioners. However, one limitation of this research is the use of a relatively small sample size; therefore results can not be generalised. In addition to that, the interviews were accomplished with international operating companies, limited to subsidiaries or headquarters in Germany and Austria. This qualitative study should serve as basis for quantitative future research. Befragungen durchwegs in . : wir haben wohl HQ sterreichischer Mittelbetriebe in der Stichprobe, aber keine Headquarter international ttiger Unternehmen, die ev. anders laufen.

    17. Sample of advertising agencies, brand consultants and market research companies (with regard to their client's brand architecture strategy)