1 / 29

De Laatste Loodjes

This presentation from the 2005 BABES Colloquium delves into the application of Systems Constellation techniques in addressing branding challenges. It explores the systematic identification of branding problems, the role of metaphors in understanding brand dynamics, and experiential methodologies for enhanced brand systems thinking. Key findings highlight the significance of position over personal history in shaping branding insights. The research examines the perspectives of marketing experts on the effectiveness of these techniques in generating innovative solutions for branding issues.

bernad
Download Presentation

De Laatste Loodjes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. De Laatste Loodjes BABES Colloquium 2005 Thursday, December 8

  2. Presentation • Laatste Loodjes: December BABES 2001 – 2005; december 2006 Dr. JURG ?! • Dissertation Content : 30 Minutes (Feedback on Concept EMAC Presentation 2006) • Dissertation Process: 15 Minutes • Questions : 15 Minutes

  3. Gap in branding research knowledge • Systematic problem identification (Ackoof, 1978; Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Chapman, 1989; Butler, 1995; Gibson, 1998) • Soft, messy problems (Chapman, 1989; Checkland & Scholes, 1990/2005; Hackley, 1999; Zikmund, 2003; Zaltman) • Effects of decisions (Yadav & Karonkanda, 1985; Davis & Moe, 1997; Durgee, O’Connor & Veryzer, 1999; Desai, 2002) • Use of metaphors (Arndt, 1985; Callingham & Baker, 2001; Morgan; Lakoff & Johnson; Zaltman; O’Malley & Patterson, 2005)

  4. Systems constellations technique • Clears overview of complex interrelationships and stimulate changes (Gminder, 2005) • Produces visual information, complementary to verbal information (Franke, 1996) • Improves clients’ self-image and psychic state (Höppner, 2001) • Experiences of stand-ins are very significantly determined by their positions and not by their individual life stories (Schlötter, 2005).

  5. Main steps in systems constellations • Interview • Projection • Modification • Vision

  6. Interview phase

  7. First part of Projection phase: person

  8. Second part of Projection phase: position

  9. Intermediate part of the Projection phase

  10. End of the Projection phase

  11. Brand application logic • Brand-as-a-person metaphor (Seguela, 1982; Aaker J.) • Brand positioning / mapping (Kotler, Aaker, Keller) • Brand systems thinking (Mintzberg, 1998; Keller, 2002; Aaker, 2004; Franzen & Van den Berg, 2003;Van der Vorst, 2004)

  12. Explorative dissertation aim • How useful (accurate, reliable, and valid) • do marketing experts • judge the application of the systems constellation technique • to identify branding problems?

  13. Explorative EMAC 2006 paper aim • How valid • do marketing experts • judge the 2004 forum branding constellations • to identify branding problems?

  14. Explorative EMAC paper 2006 questions • Do marketing experts have the opinion that the constellations clarified branding problems? • Do they consider that it generates many good ideas on how to tackle the problem? • Do they think that it enhances brand systems thinking?

  15. Methodology • Experiencing rather than reading (Miles & Huberman, 1994) • Purposeful, experiential, and snowball sampling (Mason, 2002) • ‘Ethical’ agreements branders: no-competitors, no-harm agreement, and freedom of destruction • Preparation phase: minimal, by researcher and by e-mail

  16. Direct questionnaire • Differentiation between ‘branders’ and ‘observers’ • Three clarification categories in content analysis on the level of branding problem clarification: Clarified, Limited Clarified, and Not Clarified • Four quality categories in ideation content analysis: GoodIdeas (new, actionable, leverage), Limited Ideas (rather vague), No Ideas, and No Answer.

  17. E-mail questionnaire Six scoring items (with comments) on enhanced brand systems thinking: • More awareness of branding reality • New perspective on brand element relationships • More awareness of implicit brand knowledge • Clearer brand vision • More profound experience of the brand as a system • Enhanced scenario thinking.

  18. Findings (1M):Ideation by Magazine brander in Projection phase Legend Stand-ins: C: Current readers D: Directors E: Editorial office (brander) M: 40 year-old existing Magazine R: Reformed magazine W: Well-covered articles Z: Zap-articles

  19. Findings (1TA):Ideation by Training Company brander in Projection phase A LegendStand-Ins: BL : Brand name D : Director (brander) H : High board

  20. Findings (1TB):Ideation by Training Company brander in Projection phase B LegendStand-Ins: BL : Brand name D : Director (brander) H : High board M1 : Market group 1 M2 : Market group 2 M3 : Market group 3

  21. Findings (1A): Quantity and quality of ideas by ‘audience’ experts to tackle Magazine respectively Training Company problem

  22. Findings (1S): Quantity and quality of ideas by ‘stand-in’ experts to tackle Magazine respectively Training Company problem

  23. Findings (2): Experts’ Scores on Six Aspects of Enhanced Brand Systems Thinking

  24. Findings (3): Problem Clarification to Audience in Magazine and Training Company Constellation

  25. Limitations • Facilitator’s ignorance of brand knowledge • Branders and branding experts ‘believed’ in subconscious knowledge processing.

  26. Discussion • Many good ideas were generated, brand systems thinking enhanced and branding problem clarified • Both 2004 branders applied spontaneously, and 22 Marketing experts returned • No difference between problem content and settings • First validation step (Shocker & Zaltman, 1977; Sykes, 1991) • Branders as spider – or fly – in web (Panigyrakis & Veloutsou, 2000; Bergstrom a. o. 2002;Mitchell, 2002)

  27. Implication: further research seems useful • Replication study • More conclusive, experimental design: branding constellation versus brainstorming, lateral thinking, synectics, or ZMET • Application with facilitator having brand knowledge • Application to market research companies’ briefing • Application to brand teams • Involving sociometrists, neuroscientists, and field theorists

  28. Dissertation process • Total of 11 Chapters and 150 pages • First 6 Chapters are judged • 2006 June: Promotion Committee

  29. Branding constellation theme • 8 Finished students (3 in 2004; 5 in 2005) • 9th Student, 2005, December 13 (Ed Peelen) • 10th – 15th Student, 2006 January - February • 16th – 19th Student, 2006 June • 1 Submitted refereed journal article before 2006 June

More Related