Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MJznc1rester Business
School
Introduction
Metaphors pervade our every day speech and thought. They have a number
of roles and forms (Black, 1962). They can be used rhetorically to entertain
46
and divert, their major role in a literary context. For example the metaphor
'Roger is a Lion' is not meant to be taken literally but to provide us with an
instant, figurative picture of Roger's character (Black, 1962). However the
metaphor also serves to inform us about Roger and in particular his
character. In an academic context, the main role of a metaphor is to help us
make better sense of a complex idea, such as that of 'brand'. We will explore
and categorise the various metaphors that have been applied to illuminate
the concept of brand so as to provide a structure to aid an understanding of
what a brand is and to identify the different perspectives that are possible
from different metaphors.
The role of metaphor in research is not to provide an entertaining picture
in the mind of the reader. For example if we say that the modem business
organisation is a machine or an organism, we are trying to understand the
complexity of modem organisations, {Morgan, 1986). Metaphors encourage
a re-conceptualisation of what is already given. Their use generates fresh
hypotheses about the target of the metaphor. Using a metaphor for a
metaphor, they 'rearrange the furniture of our minds' (Kittay, 1987) changing
and developing our thinking. Metaphors can be mental models for sense
making, aiding managers in their communication (de Chernatony and
Dall'Glmo Riley, 1997).
Metaphor differs from simile or analogy in that the reader is asked to
accept that the target (in our case the brand) is the metaphor. In the previous
example Roger is said to be a lion, not to be lionlike (a simile), nor merely to
behave like a lion when angry (an analogy). Simile is thus dose to analogy
except that it is a holistic and explicitly imaginative comparison that means
to be like something. Analogy has within it an aspectual bias and the
possibility of a real connection as in the example of Roger when we are told
that he is like a lion in certain circumstances. Metaphor is a more robust
approach (McCourt, 1997), because it creates a more fundamental challenge
to how we think about a target. A metaphor works through the associations
we can make with something that is better understood or just easier to
understand. More fundamentaUy the use of metaphor invites the reader to
connect two ideas.
Metaphor has been Widely used in both the physical and social sciences
(Axley, 1984). For example in the natural sciences the electron has been said
to be either a particle or a wave. Both give useful but different views on the
nature of an electron. Complex phenomena, such as time, can have different
meanings in different contexts and these can be understood by identifying
and understanding the various metaphors used to represent such
phenomena (Hazard, 2001).
The target of a metaphor, in our first example Roger, is seen through the
metaphor of the lion, which filters and transforms our view of the target.
47
1/
48
49
are seen as political economies, within the subjective world paradigm the
consumer is seen as irrational and within the liberating paradigm the
consumer may be seen as victim. Hanby (1999) is specifically concerned with
metaphors associated with the brand and he identifies two groups of
metaphor that have been used in different time periods. In the positivistic
approach of the middle of the 20th century the brand was seen as an
'extended product'. Latterly post.modem thinking has the brand as a'living
entity'.
An alternative way of appraising any structure in the use of metaphor,
one that we will use here, is to identify the metaphor dusters based on
different 'root' metaphors. Many shoots grow from a root metaphor and.
collectively, they form a system with each root metaphor creating its own
system (Ortony. 1979). Aristotle is credited with the observation that the
relationship between the root and subordinate is similar to that between
genus and species. Thus root metaphors represent the underlying
proposition that the reader is asked to accept. Attaching too much 'weight'
to subordinate metaphors is like trying to make the overtones in a chord
sound as loud as the main notes (Black, 1962). The root metaphor is more
enduring than its subordinates, which depend upon the root for their
credibility. What we will label as root and sub-metaphors will normally
reinforce one another and carry the same system of implications.
Brand as DifferentiatingMark
The word 'brand' is itself a metaphor. Its original literal meaning was as a
mark of identification placed on something (originally someone, as in the
clipping of a thief's ears). The word became associated with the marking or
'branding' of cattle in the 19th century (Ford, 1936). As owners used different
marks, the brand mark also differentiated one animal from another. The
origins of the idea of a distinguishing mark predate the Western cattle ranch
by over three millennia. Brick makers in ancient Egypt used marks to identify
the bricks they made to avoid any blame if a building collapsed due to a
poorly made product. Potters in the same era often signed' theil' work. Cattle
were also marked much in the same way as in America nearly 4000 years
later. The word 'brand' itself dates from medieval times and its associations
with marketing are much later.
I
50
Brand as Person
One of the most common metaphors in the branding literature is that of
'brand as person' where human characteristics are ascribed to a brand
(Hanby, 1999; Aaker, 1997). 'Like people, brands can have emotions' (Aaker
et at, 1986) and 'Like people, brands can have personalities' (Duboff, 1986;
Durgee, 1988; Park, et aI., 1986).
Gardner and Levy (1955) were early in claiming that a brand is more than
51
52
1996).
It is useful to distinguish between the term 'relationship marketing' and
the sub-metaphor that states that we can have relationships with brands.
Relationship marketing is a label applied to a particular way of looking at the
customer, not in terms of a series of transactions but in terms of lifetime
value. It sees marketing as a process of bUilding a longterm reJationship.
Metaphors exist to aid our understanding of relationship marketing, that of
marriage (e.g., Dwyer et a1., 1987). Our focus here is on metaphors relevant
to understanding brands, where the relationship metaphor would preclude
the idea of calculating a life time value for example, as this is not what most
human beings do in their personal relationships. A more useful metaphor in
our context could be brand as partner, an idea we address later.
A sut>.metaphor that should faU within the root of brand as person is that
of loyalty. Loyalty implies the human trait of being exclusively and
enduring linked with another person, to be true and trustworthy in a
relationship. In human relations one spouse is expcct[?d to be totally, not
partially, loyal to the other. Less exclusively, a loyal friend can still have
many other friends, but loyal friendships are enduring. When the term is
applied to describe our relationship with a brand the exclusivity issue is
generally ignored, so we are unclear as to what we are expected to surmise
about the customer's loyalty and fidelity and how long the relationship
should last. What is often meant by the expression brand loyalty in the
marketing literature is merely the propensity or otherwise of a customer to
purchase the same thing at the next purchase occasion Oacoby and Chestnut,
1978) or, even more simply, it is the likelihood of repurchOise (Areni et at,
1999). Stochastic models of purchase and repurchase rates of competing
brands are not compatible with the metaphor of loyalty drawn from the root
metaphor of brand as person.
Customers can even be seen as 'partly loyal' (Tranberg and Hansen, 1986)
an idea that is again not relevant to human relationships. Brand loyalty is
rarely being used as a metaphor. It has become a term capable of specific
53
will.
Individuals have values and so must the brand as person. Corporate
reputation research has adopted the sub-metaphor of brand as a set of values
in such definitions of the corporate brand as la set of values perceived as
typical for a specific company in the eyes of a variety of stakeholders' (van
Riel, 1997). Companies define values or guiding principles and these are used
to promote a strong reputation (Davies and Miles, 1998).
Brand as Asset
The expression 'brand asset' is often used to denote the fact that brands
are valuable and that their value stems from a number of aspects of branding
(e.g., Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; de Chernatony and McWilliam, 1989).
However the metaphor that a brand is an intangible financial asset opens the
door to a large number of ideas. An asset is an item of property and one
specifically of worth. Thus the metaphor suggests two things, first that a
brand must belong to someone and second that it has a value that can be
54
55
An asset can be bought and sold. In the case of a brand, its use can also be
licensed, the equivalent of renting or hiring out the use of an asset to a third
party. As the asset is intangible, it can be rented to more than one party
simultaneously. The rental or licence value to the brand owner can be 5 to 16
percent of the turnover achieved by the user (Perrier, 1989).
The sub.metaphors of brand as asset include the notion of the brand as a
source of economic power as in the competition for market control between
manufacturer and retailer. Manufacturers' brands are their legitimate source
of market power (Ramsay, 1996) while retailers can own only 'own-labels'.
In reality own-label products have as much right to the addition of branding
as any product and retailer owned names can also be brand names (Davies,
1992).
Finally, assets can be applied in a number of ways. Plant and buildings
can be used for a number of businesses. So can the brand asset. The phrase
'umbrella brand; sounds like a very different metaphor but the underlying
root is really that of asset, not of protection. An asset is more valuable if it
can be used as an umbrella over a number of brands. It reduces the cost of
launching new brands. It reduces the cost of promoting existing products if
the brand name is the same. We do not mean that the umbrella will keep
something dry or shaded. The phrase 'brand stretcli has the same
inferences. How far the brand can stretch may have as its origin the simile of
making money go further but the issue is the value to the company of being
able to apply the brand name to as wide a range of products as possible.
57
British food retailer (East and Hogg, 1997). The brand manager is seen as
someone who kills off other brands (Low and Fullerton, 1994). Seeing the
brand as a warrior creates a picture of aggression, moderated by a code of
honour. Brand names such as Chieftain (for a tank and a light aircraft) and
Cherokee (for an off-road vehicle) evoke the metaphor. Alternatively the
metaphor may suggest a brand that is militant, an aggressor, combative, or
belligerent. For example brand names for Aggressive' inline skates include
Razor and Rollerblade. Pharmaceuticals can be positioned as warriors and
heroes with names such as Interferon. Nike uses leading sports personalities
for endorsement but has portrayed some in advertising as warriors playing
football against the underworld. This and Peugeot's use of the song 'search
for the hero inside yourself' in its advertising are examples of marketers
evoking the brand as warrior metaphor.
Brand as Family
The use of the expression 'umbrella brand' was criticised earlier as being
misleading. A relevant metaphor might be brand as family. Compare the
role of the Virgin brand name with that of Ni Yea. The Virgin brand is
stretched across a large number of less than totally related products, Virgin
Trains, Virgin Money, Virgin Airline, Virgin Cars, to the point where it is
difficult to see w ha t the brand represents and there is a danger that the name
will become damaged from over use and by the occasional failure. Nivea is
used more selectively on a more coherent product range, N ivea Cream,
Nivea Baby, Nivea Soft, Nivea Visage, Nivea Vital. New products tend to
grow out of existing lines (Ourusoff et al, 1992). We talk about the 'parent'
brand when discussing brand extensions (van Riel, 1997; Kapferer, 1997;
Morrin, 1999). The use of the word parent is part of the family metaphor,
brand as family. The metaphor implies that brand extensions should be
closely'related'. They should share certain aspects of character and visual
appearance. They should share the same language and customs, the same
identity. The research agenda on brand extension could be enlivened
through the use of the metaphor. For example why do some extensions to
'the family' appear to be unacceptable to us as consumers? Can we
understand this by looking at the stigma of illegitimacy? Is it possible to
identify strategic options for brand extension using the various roles in a
family to denote different options: father, mother, child, elder brother and so
on.
Brand as Pilot
From the previous example it could be implied that the Virgin's strategy
of applying the brand name to literally hundreds of different companies and
products is flawed because it does not adhere to the metaphor of brand as
58
Brand as Undenvriter
People use brands to reduce their risks. For example in the context of own
brands, shoppers will trade off the risk of making a mistake in purchasing a
cheaper, but less familiar, store brand against any price advantage the own
brand offers against the more heavily branded supplier brand (Dunn et al."
1986; Batra and Sinha, 2000). Consumer risk has been conceptualized as
dealing with uncertainty (Hoover et at, 1978; Peter and Ryan, 1976) and in
the context of a brand this implies a willingness to pay a premium to reduce
or eliminate such uncertainty. Put another way the price premium of a
producer brand is the equivalent to an insurance premium paid to eliminate
the risks associated with the purchase or ownership of a house or consumer
durable. One possible role of a brand is then that of risk reducer, insurer or
even underwriter. As an underwriter the brand assumes the risks associated
with purchase that we may be unwilling to accept. Brand as underwriter is
another example of the metaphor of brand as role.
Brand as Partner
59
partner is a reciprocal one. Earlier we discussed the idea that we can hav.e a
relationship with a brand within the context of brand as person (FournIer,
1998). If we see the idea as evoking the brand as partner metaphor, then the
nature of the relationship becomes dearer. As a customer we would offer the
brand advice rather than criticism or complaints. We would see our own
future as dependant upon a deepening of the relationship and thus brand as
partner becomes a useful metaphor in developing an understanding of
relationship marketing.
Brands can become partners with other brands. OneWorld, SkyTeam, Star
Alliance and Qualiflyer are each alliances of airline brands. They have
become brands in their own right. Ford and Firestone were once partners,
until a Ford vehicle had problems with shredding Firestone tyres that led to
fatalities. Intel and IBM had a falling out over a chip that got its sums wrong.
In the latter two cases there was a problem with the chosen partner that
ended in corporate tears. Co.branding is common in America where a
confectionary brand is used by a brand of ice cream and Ocean Spray
cranberries are labelled as such in one of Post's breakfast cereals (Solomon
and Stuart, 2000). The brand as partner metaphor emphasises the need to
choose a partner carefully using similar criteria to those we use in our
business or personal worlds, but it also suggests that any brand should be
open to the idea of partnering.
Brand as Seducer
Deighton and Grayson (1995) refer to the brand's ability to break down a
customer's initial resistance. This evokes the metaphor of brand as seducer,
where the brand's primary role is to overcome resistance, but in a subtle
rather than in an aggressive or coercive way. Resistance could be that from
distributors as well as from customers. Seduction implies an emotional,
intuitive and primitive process. Brody (1996) accuses the cigarette industry
of seducing first time users, claiming that the most successful brands are the
ones that most adequately address the initiation process that he likens to a
vestigial initiation rite. Brands associated with being more sexually attractive
may inherently have the attributes of the seducer. The new packaging of the
male cosmetic range Lynx was described by those marketing the brand as '
remaining true to the proven brand keywords: seduction, you thiul,
masculine, cool, unpretentious, black, and quality'. The skilled seducer is
circumspect, rarely obvious. It is left to others to refer to the brand as a
seducer as in this review written about the launch of a Mazda car, , Every
couple of years, one of the automakers designs a new compact car to test the
strength of car buyers' brand loyalty. This year, it's the Protege's tum to play
the seducer's role'.
Creating new metaphors or breathing life into dormant ones has clear
60
Brand Image
Brand image and brand personality have been identified as being both
separate concepts (Gordon, 19%; Patterson, 1999) and as similar concepts
(Hendon and Williams, 1985; Upshaw, 1995).
Differences exist in the
definition of terms such as corporate brand image: 'a summary of the
impressions or perceptions held by external stakeholders' (Balmer, 1996) and
'what the customer believes or feels about the company from his experiences
and observation' (Bernstein, 1984), and 'attitudes and feelings consumers
have about the nature and underlying reality of the company' (Pharoah,
1982: 2(3).
This lack of consistency is due to the use of the expression 'brand image'
originally as a metaphor. As metaphors are a means towards understanding
and part of our attempts to define something else, different authors will
inevitably make different associations with the same metaphor. It is
important therefore to distinguish between what is being used as a concept
or term and what as a metaphor. Are brand personality and brand image
terms; or metaphors by which we can try to understand the same concept,
that of a brand? They can be both, and writers should ensure their readers
know in which sense the reader is expected to see them.
Brand image as a metaphor should be limited to the idea of a brand being
a mental picture, an impression in the mind. As a metaphor brand as image
has made a limited contribution to our understanding of what a brand is, as
the ideas of brand and image are too congruent. The words 'brand image', or
61
'store image' in a retail context, have become associated more with a list of
attributes and a scale for their measurement (Kotler, 1988). Brand image is
now, in our view, best seen as a term. It has lost whatever limited power it
once had as a metaphor and has become a potentially useful way of
communicating a single idea, as long as we can all agree which one. In
contrast, 'brand as person' and therefore the idea that brands can have
personality is providing a whole raft of new ways of thinking about brands
and branding. The metaphor is very much alive. In the future academic
thought may coalesce around their being something unique that it is useful
to label as brand personality, allowing it to be defined and to become a term.
Brand Equity
62
63
evolutionary process in the life and use of metaphors for brand. There are
new metaphors for brand being born such as spirit and capital. Most stem
from existing root metaphors. Some become dormant, for example the
metaphor that a brand is a warrior was first evoked by the use of military
metaphor in both the marketing and strategy literatures. The metaphor is
not in common use, but it may move at any time from dormancy into life.
There are a number of dormant metaphors that are associated with ascribing
roles to brands and we discussed the potential for brand as role as a new root
metaphor. We see the metaphors of image and loyalty as dead now that they
have become terms with their own specific meanings. Brand as intangible
asset is likely to become more widely used now that brand valuation has
moved to the top of the management agenda. It has moved out of a period of
dormancy into full life. Personality and reputation appear to us to be the
metaphors providing significant bases for current work on understanding
brand and branding and we use these as our main examples of metaphors in
their life phase.
The model clarifies the distinction between metaphor and term. The level
of use in the literature may well be higher when a metaphor becomes a term,
but its metaphoric use declines, indeed must decline as the word takes on a
specific meaning. The two most interesting phases from a creative
perspective are the first two, because new or dormant metaphors have the
power to create new meaning for the brand phenomenon.
Theoretical Implications
The use of metaphor has been invaluable in developing our understanding of
what 'brand' means. However it is likely that many who use metaphors
when discussing or researching branding do SO unconsciously. In marketing
the conscious use of metaphor in research has fallen behind other areas in
social science. There are a limited number, three in our view, main root or
source metaphors in current use: brand as distinguishing mark, brand as
person and brand as asset. There are many other metaphors, or rather submetaphors that spring from these roots. There could and should be many
more.
Academic authors mix metaphors in their writing about brands (and other
areas of marketing) adding to a sense of confusion and detracting from the
value of metaphor in research. Mixed metaphors should be an area for
concern among Journal editors and reviewers.
"
-- --
UnsTAGfi
Fig..te 2. A
lif~St.S'
mod,1 of Mtiaphor UH
Tho l.o<k aI <kl.rily """"'S o u _ In "pWD!,,! ............, 'hey "'" ... inS'
.."..I .. I _phDr or
mm an <a_ oonfuoion. Oro metaph<>obooromeo. Imn it d
phot. I' ta.... ,.. 'IS own mNJting. """ m.
which ~ may be "II ,
pbon l<l ~. wld6 undmlor.ding
that ~ TIl< P'-"""'d of Inmition of ........phoI into. ""'" io l;\,.ly ....
~".-l
Pr<O<'llli<>no<> .......Id bo .w.... '" Ihr ~';.,I probI.o..... that ,.on an.. if
d,ffenmt pmo of tho .."'"
d'-', ....... phon "'hen
lh1nkIn& '" 101'''''r; _ , _
Fo< .... mple ~ .....,ktlng .s.:p..n....."
""'" ,'''' ~l"" ....... pl"" In .. 110.1", aboo' Ilw """'!"ny'. brondf,
and. .t tho ...... t"..... Ihr -AllntI doVo- is I>lk'''g ......, 'ho _
trm.ls wl!lun thr _ _phor. """"""" .. w..iIabIe. Tha, "";d. I~ 10
1... In ...mg Mf....... m<IaphDn. In dilfonm dtc",~ ..... ho, ""
_
by tho bnnd ~ II <OMpIn _
mul!if_O'd It io onlil<ely Ihol
Ihr ..... of '"'" _phor will b<....,.,sh for any orpUYlion to OAA..,;t.u\d
65
References
Aaker, D.A., Stayman, D.M. and Hagerty, M.R. (1986), "Warmth in
Advertising: Measurement, Impact and Sequence Effects", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, No 4, pp. 365-381
Aaker, D.A (1991), "Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing On the Value of A
Brand Name", The Free Press, New York
Aaker, D. A. (1996), "Building Strong Brands", New York: The Free Press
Aaker, J. (1997), uDimensions of Brand Personality", Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 34, August, pp. 347-356
Alba, J.W. and Chattopadhyay, A. (1986), "Salience Effects in Brand Recall",
Journal ofMarketing Researdr, Vol. 23, November, pp. 363-369
Areni, C.s., Duhan, D.F. and Kiecker, P. (1999), "Point of Purchase Displays,
Product Organisation, and Brand Purchase Likelihoods", Journal of the
Academy o/Marketing Science, Fall, Vol. 27, No.4, pp. 428441
Arndt, J. (1985), liOn Making Marketing Science More Scientific: Role of
Orientations, Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, Summer, pp. 11-23
Ambler, T. and Barwise, P. (1998), "The Trouble with Brand Valuation", The
Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 5, No.5, pp. 367-377
Arnold, J., Egginton, D., Kirkham, L., Maeve, R. and Peasnell, K. (1992),
"Goodwill and Other Intangibles", The Institute of Chartered Accountants
of England and Wales, London
Axley S.R. (1984), "Managerial and Organisational Communication in Terms
of the Conduit Metaphor", Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 9 No.3 pp.
66
428-437
Baker, M. (1984), (Ed.), Macmillan Dictionary of Marketing and Advertising,
Macmillan, London
Balmer, J.M.T. (1996), liThe Nature of Corporate Identity: an Explanatory
Study Undertaken Within BBC Scotland", Ph. D Thesis No. T8755,
Glasgow: University of Strathc1yde, Department of Marketing
Batra, Rajeev, Donald R. Lehamann, and Dipinder Singh (1993), "The Brand
Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and
Consequences", In Brand Equity and Advertising, David A. Aaker and
Alexander Biel, (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.
83-96
Batra, R. and Sinha, I. (2000), "Consumer Level Factors Moderating the
Success of Private Label Brands", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 (2), pp. 175191
Beauchamp, T. L. and Bowie, N. E. (1993), Ethical Theory and Business, 4th Edn.,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Bernstein, D. (1984), "Company image and reality - a critique of corporate
communications", Holt Rinehart Winston, London
Berry, L.L., Lefkowith, E.E. and Clark, T. (1988), "In Services, What's in a
Name", Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 28-30
Biel, Alexander L. (1993), "Converting Image into Equity", In: Brand Equity
and Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, David A.
Aaker and Alexander Biel, (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 67-82
Black, M. (1962), "Models and Metaphors", Cornell University Press, New York
Boyd, C.W. (1985), "Point of View: Alpha-Numeric Brand Names", Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 25, No.5, October/November, pp. 48-52
Brody, A. (1996), "Cigarette Seduction: Deconstructing its Siren Appeal to
Teen Smokers" http://www.tobacco.org/Misc/cigseduction.html, as at
July 312001
Carman, J. (1970), Correlates of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research,
March, pp. 360-371
.
Collins, E. (1977), "A Name to Conjure with", European Journal of Marketing,
Vol.ll, No.5, pp. 337-363
Crimp, M. (1990), The Marketing Research Process, 3rd Edn., Prentice Hall,
London
Davies, G. (1998), "Retail Brands and the Theft of Identity", International
Journal ofRetail and Distribution Management, Vol. 26, No.4, pp. 140-146
Davies, G. (1992), "The Two Ways in Which Retailers Can Be Brands",
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 20, No.2,
pp.24-34
Davies, G. and Miles, L. (1998), "Reputation Management: Theory versus
67
68
II
P463
Kraemer, T.}. (2001), "Generating New Metaphors: Downsizing as Cancer",
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(3), pp. 355-66
Krishnan, H.S. (1996), '1 Characteristics of Memory Associations.
A
Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective", International Journal Of
Researc11 in Marketing, VoL. 13, No.4, pp. 389-405
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980), "Metaphors We Live By", Chicago
University Press, Chicago
Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J-L. (1985), "Measuring Consumer Involvement
Profiles", Journal ofMarketing Researc1l, February, Vol. 22, pp.41 53
Lewis, B. R. and Littler, D. (Eds.), (1997), "TIre Blackwell Encyclopaedic
Dictionary ofMarketing", 'Blackwell, London
Levitt, T. (1983), IJTIle Marketing Imagination", New York, The Free Press
4
69
Low, G.S. and Fullerton, RA. (1994), #lBrands, Brand management, and the
brand manager system: A criticalhistorical evaluation", Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 173--190
Mackay, M.M., Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (1998), " A Classification of Brand
Equity Research Endeavours", The Tournal of Brand Management, Vol. 5,
No.6 pp. 415-429
Markham, V. (1972), Planning the Corporate Reputation, London: George Allen
& Unwin
Martineau, P. (1958), ilThe Personality of the Retail Store", Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 36, pp. 4755
McCourt, W. (1997), uDiscussion Note; Using Metaphors to Understand and
to Change Organizations: A Critique of Gareth Morgan's Approach",
Organisational Studies, Vol. 18, No.3, pp. 511522
McGoldrick, P. and Andre, E. (1997), "Consumer Misbehaviour", Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 73-81
McWilliam, C. and Dumas, A. (1997), "Using Metaphor in New Brand
Design", Journal ofMarketing Managemenf, Vol. 13, pp. 265-284
Morgan, G. (1983), "More on Metaphor: Why We Cannot Control Tropes in
Administrative Science", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 601-
607
Morgan, G. (1986), "Images ofOrganisation", London: Sage
Morrin, M. (1999), liThe Impact of Brand Extensions on Parent Brand
Memory Structures an Retrieval Processes", Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. 36, November, pp. 517525
Murphy, J.M. (1990), "Brand Strategy", Director Books, Cambridge
O'Malley, L. and Tynan, C. (1999), "The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor
in Consumer Markets: A Critical Evaluation", Journal of Marketing
Management, October, Vol. 15, No.7, pp. 587602
Olins, W. (1978), "The Corporate Personality", Design Council, London
Ortony, A. (1975), IIWhy Metaphors are Necessary and Not Just Nice",
Educational Theory, Vol. 25, pp. 45-53
Ortony, A. (1979), "Metaphor, a Multidimensional Problem", in Ortonony, A.
(Ed.), 11 Metaphor and Thought" Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ourusoff, A., Ozanian, M., Brown, P. B. and Starr, J. (1992), "Whal"s in a
Name? What the World"s Top Brands are Worth", Financial World,
September, Vol. 1, pp. 32-49
Park, C. Whan, Jaworski, Bernard J. and Macinnis, Deborah J. (1986),
"Strategic Brand Conceptlmage Management", TournaI of Marketing, Vol.
SO No.4, pp. 135145
Patterson, M. (1999), "Re-Appraising the Concept of Brand Image", The
Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 6, No.6, pp. 409-426
Perrier, R. (1989), "Valuation and Licensing", in, Murphy, J. (Ed.) Brand
70
Sackmann,
S.
(1989),
liThe
Soloman, M.R. and Stuart, E. W. (2000), "Marketing, Real People, Real Choices",
2"4 Edn., Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Strunk, W. and White, E.B. (1979), "The Elements of SlyIe", 3r4 Edn., Macmillan,
New York
Thomas, R (1999), 'IDeveloping an Ethical Image: Managing Your
Reputation via Corporate Branding", The TournaI of Brand Management,
Vol. 6, No.3, pp.198-210
Thomson, K (1998), "Emotional Capital", Capston
Tinker, T. (1986), "Metaphor or Reification: Are Radical Humanists Really
Libertarian Anarchists"1 Journal ofManagement Studies, June, Vol. 23, No.4,
pp.363-384
Tourangeau, R. (1982), "Metaphor and Cognitive Structure"', in Miall, DS.
(Ed.), "Metaphor, Problems and Perspectives", Harvester Press, Brighton,
Sussex
Tranberg, H. and Hansen, F. (1986), "Patterns of Brand Loyalty, Their
Determinants and Their Role for Lending Brands", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 3/4, pp. 81-109
Turbayne, C.M. (1970), "The Myth ofMetaplJor", Rev. Edn., University of South
Carolina Press, Columbia, S.c.
Upshaw, L.B. (1995), #Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile
Marketplaa!JJ John Wiley & Sons, New York
Van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), "Protecting the Corporate Brand by Orchestrated
71
418
Ward, R. and Perrier, R. (1998), "Brand Valuation, The Times are A
Changing", The Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 5, No.4, pp. 283289
Zaltman, G., Lemasters, K., and Heffring, M. (1982), "Theory Construction in
Marketing: Some 1110ughts on Thinking", John Wiley & Sons, New York