Tybout, A. and Carpenter, G. Creating and Managing Brands
In their article Creating and Managing Brands, Tybout and Carpenter try to describe what a brand is and how brands are created and maintained. According to them, ‘for a brand to be successful, it’s very important that the associations that can be attached to a product become part of buyer’s lives’ (Tybout and Carpenter 77). In other words, every (marketing) decision that is made will have an influence on the success of a brand and the way it is perceived. Tybout and Carpenter mention three types of brands, respectively functional, image and experiential brands, which can be related to three branding strategies;
So, my question here is, “are these different brand(ing) categories useful? And does every brand fit neatly into one of these categories?” For instance, is it possible for a brand to be a functional, an image and an experiential brand at the same time? Overall, I think the categories Tybout and Carpenter mention can be very useful, because they offer a convenient way to compare different kind of brands. However, I also think it’s possible that some brands can be more types at the same time, and I’m not sure Tybout and Carpenter agree with this. For example, I think mobile phones, like Vodafone can be seen as a functional brand as well as an image brand (and maybe even an experimental brand). In their advertisements Vodafone not only emphasises on the many different - and improved - options, but also on the people who use it and all the wonderful things/experiences it can bring people (like sharing moments with friends). If I’m not mistaken, Tybout and Carpenter do believe that brands can change (type) over time, but that they can only belong to one type. And like I said, I’m not sure about that.
Dafermos, G. Blogging the Market: How Weblogs are Turning Corporate Machines into real Conversations
According to Dafermos, weblogs are ‘the embodiment of online self-organising social systems’ and more importantly, they ensure that ‘the power will shift to where knowledge resides’ (Dafermos 2). In other words, everybody can create their own weblog and is able to participate and offer their (un)wanted advice. Besides this, more and more companies begin to realise that weblogs have a lot of potential and that things like 'collaborative filtering' can help both them and their clients (Dafermos 30). According to Dafermos, nowadays it’s important for corporations to try and communicate with their market, instead of only focusing on selling their products (Dafermos 47).
At one point, Dafermos claims that ‘there is credibility to the business case for blogging’ (Dafermos 46). So, my question here is, “is this true?” In a way I think he’s right in believing this and as far as I know Macromedia is a good example for a corporation that successfully uses weblogs. I also agree with Dafermos that it’s important that people believe these weblogs are made by people who speak with a ‘true voice’ and even though these weblogs mostly exist to benefit a company, I think most people won’t mind this. Overall, weblogs (will) increasingly play a big part in people’s lives and since weblogs seem to encourage openness and participation, I think they can indeed be useful for corporations.
However, Dafermos also mentions that blogging-for-money is still a bit unsure (Dafermos 36). And if I’m not mistaken he doesn’t really give a satisfactory answer to how people can make money out of blogging. Apparently, some inventive people like Sullivan have found a way to earn money and I also think the people who maintain the weblogs for corporations like Macromedia have a normal salary (just like the other people who work for Macromedia), but most bloggers don’t make money out of it. Even so, Dafermos believes that most bloggers do it for fun and don’t really feel the need to get paid for it, and I guess he’s right about that.
Nixon, S. Re-imagining the ad agency: the cultural connotations of economic forms
Nixon is someone who believes that economic and cultural processes are interdependent on one another and in his article Re-imagining the ad agency he claims that nowadays advertising agencies face a lot of challenges (Nixon 134). For instance, often advertising agencies have a negative image of being unaccountable and somewhat conservative, so now many of them are trying to redefine their image. Not only that, they are also rethinking the way they work and want to get paid (Nixon 146). According to Nixon it’s important to have a proper financial agreement and apart from commission-based payment, project fees and royalties, he also mentions the ‘salary concept’, which may be the best option for the future (Nixon 144). Overall, agencies should try to make themselves ‘a trusted business partner and ensure a good relationship with their clients’ (Nixon 145).
My question here is, “have advertising agencies really changed that much?” I’m not very familiar with the way advertising agencies work, but I’m sure things like globalisation and the emergence of new media technologies have had a big impact on these agencies. Personally I think Nixon is somewhat vague when he claims that ‘advertising agencies are redefining their image’, but I guess by that he means that many of these agencies are now trying to be more flexible. He also mentions that many of them now work in ‘multi-disciplinary project teams’ and that they try to have a better relationship with their clients (Nixon 138). If I’m not mistaken, above all he believes that advertising agencies must pay more attention to their financial agreement. Like I said, I don’t know enough about all of this, but it just seems to me that these things have always been important to advertising agencies. Maybe I’m missing the point, but I think (redefining) ideas like ‘be more flexible’ and ‘think more broadly’ seem a bit empty.