Scarica Relationships among Brand Identity, Brand Image and Brand Preference e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Marketing solo su Docsity! Nowadays consumers can have easier access to information on products and services than in the past. Notwithstanding, firms are still capable of influencing consumer’s purchasing decision not only through the research of competitive offer (quality/convenience ratio), but also by taking advantage of brands’ influence on people. In fact, brands might be considered the most effective intangible assets owned and used by companies for improving sales revenue and financial value (Sääksjärvi and Samiee, 2011). Brands’ strength depends on different variables, among which brand identity and brand image prove to be extremely important. Specifically, brand identity is the idea and purpose in which a firm wants to be recognized by the society, with the aim to discerns itself within the market; brand image instead, is the customers’ perceptions on the business and social path undertaken by the company (Kapferer, 2012). Brand identity reveals the capabilities of a company to create features of uniqueness and distinctiveness on its brands. It mainly depends on the objectives, ambitions and principles the company desire to convey, and on target of consumers they yearn for appealing to. Regarding the strategical path to follow for achieving a clear and durable brand identity, the firm’s choice is mainly bases on its leading idea, which determines the companies’ ambitions and values, namely the fundamental pillars on which the brand will be based on (Mühlbacher, Dahringer and Leihs, 2006). The aim of a brand is not only to transmit the values of the product and of the firm, but even to create an identity able to induce positive perceptions and recognition on part of stakeholders (i.e. generating brand image). Specifically, brand image is not controlled by the company but it is generated by stakeholders’ minds through the elaboration of their brand knowledge, purchasing decision (either direct or indirect) and perceptions, which though partially depend on the degree of effectiveness and success of the implemented brand identity strategy (Kuoksa, 2017). In the literature, to comprehend the weakness and the strengths of a trademark is used the Kapferer’s brand identity prism, which analyses six crucial brand variables: psysique, personality, culture, relationship, reflection, self-image (Kapferer, 2012). Brand identity enables to achieve both internal and external benefits. It helps indeed to clarify and to broadcast the company’s goals and values, which must be fully understood and respected by the employees, as they might be useful to find the solution during the company’s crisis (Buil, Catalán and Martínez, 2016). A company can even interact in defining its brand identity by promoting collectively administrative policies appreciated towards employees. For instance, if a company grants particular privileges and awards to employees it may not only generate a deep sense of belonging in part of the latter, but also gaining admiration and positive identification by public opinion (Mühlbacher, Dahringer and Leihs, 2006). Since firms change radically their business strategy, organizational structure, and employees over time, and several external circumstances evolve, brand identity value is not stable but constantly evolving. Therefore, it turns out to be particularly complex to keep stakeholders on track of progress and to reassure the authenticity will continue to be the priority (Kapferer, 2012). Monitoring that the brand image perceived by the masses does not excessively move away from the real identity that the company has been looking for is even more difficult. Indeed, a brand, if not driven by the company but by the masses, may lose consequently causing both economic and internal problems (Kuoksa, 2017). An example can be the American clothing trademark Gap (founded in 1969). It based its strategy on its “effortless cool” identity through either effective youth clothing style and active spots (Monllos, 2015). Those features allowed Gap to gain remarkable commodification benefits, that have been relatively reduced following company’s choice to introduce others different and incompatible brands such as Banana Republic and Old Navy (in the 90s) , whose strategies were based on cheap clothing supply. Although the aforementioned new brands gained a relevant success, over the years Gap has begun to be associated with them (brand image) therefore losing its true identity and sales potential (Monllos, 2015).
