Latest Entries »

It is possible that one can loose interest in a particular brand and move on to another rather quickly.

Similarly, when it’s said that a brand’s components, or touchpoints must be “integrated” this raises questions on how to meet this vague objective.

To ensure the “brand experience” is truly an experience, (versus various interrelated mediums), the brand must progress throughout its execution. A recent example is JC Penney. There’s currently so much focus on store re-design and pricing – yet will the old JCP overshadow the proposed changes? This is contingent on the consumer response to any internal ( such as organizational network/culture, strategy) modifications and whether the brand acts differently.

So it’s not enough to simply execute – but brands should execute tactics in a tactful manner.

This means thinking ahead – and considering many of the countless ways people could interact with touchpoints, and how they might intertwine their feelings of these interactions with others in everyday conversation, thereby placing their own “spin” on the brand-created tactic.

This thought process isn’t only for retail; but can be applied to any marketing challenge, across industries. Questioning how a brand’s actions connect to the strategy, vis a vis a certain medium is crucial; to not only properly express the brand, but to ensure individuals respond to content in ways that will fuel prolonged brand affinity.

-Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin

Twitter chats escalate and enhance the Twitter experience. In another post, I’ve argued that Twitter is akin to a “seamless stream of consciousness” and chats allow this “stream” to continue in a more focused manner while being part of the overall Twitter ambiance.

Twitter chats are intense. When I join a Twitter chat I’m thinking “big picture” – for instance, what’s the general topic about, and who am I interacting with? Yet I’m also thinking fast – while ensuring my contributions help clarify the question on the table, and advance the discussion by interacting with others to ignite ideas while remaining focused on the overarching theme. Want to “step out of the room” and have a quick exchange with someone? Simply tweet without the Chat’s #Hashtag – and then “re-enter” the group’s discussion! Thinking about Twitter chats in this manner let us treat these events as a means to enhance future content, create new connections, and serve as a gathering “hub” for individuals with similar interests. Additionally, followers can see what I write during a chat – and this can provoke more participation.

When a Twitter chat (or chats) are complete, I’ll “zoom out” of the “Twitter Chat microcosm” and jump back into the greater realm of Twitter. This dynamic interaction with Twitter digs beyond the platform’s surface benefits to share various perspectives within a fairly short and focused timeframe.

Some of the Twitter chats I’ve been taking part in are:

#InfluenceChat   #BrandChat   #SMChat    #CXO  #Rtlchat    #MMchat    #UsGuysChat

How do you approach Twitter chats? Feel free to share some that you partake in and recommend in the comments and/or on Twitter.

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin

Most are aware of the term “Brand Experience.”  I’ll discuss a rather subtle, yet essential distinction – the “brand experience” & my “experiencing of that brand experience”.

I believe this distinction helps focus attention on the audience for whom the brand experience is for. Let’s begin.

I walk into my local Starbucks and I notice a darkened aura. Obviously, the walls are painted a darker shade of gray, wood finishings were added, along with photographs and “Environmental Stewardship” | “Community Involvement” affixed to a rich wooden backdrop. Also, a neat, new coffee maker – the Clover – is now featured in this particular location. These substantial changes of retail environments are obviously not a frequent happening.

The physical environment of this Starbucks – what I’ll call the ‘brand experience’ has been modified.

Discussing brands in the vernacular of “keeping the experience evolving” brings us to an interesting question – is it the brand experience that should evolve, or the consumer’s actions, in response to that brand experience? Or both?

I believe these ideas work in synch; and a powerful change in brand experience can elicit a different “experiencing of the brand.” However, changing the brand experience (i.e. physical changes) without subsequent changes in a person’s response or actions as a result of that change might make the change seem unnecessary.

How can we keep one’s “experiencing” of the brand experience fluid? Share your view in the comments section and/or on Twitter.

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin

A recent #HBRChat posed this question: “How did Steve Jobs change the technology world?” Without a doubt, Steve Jobs’ impact upon technology is immense; Apple is a game changer; and the brand that many attempt to emulate. The power of ideas – and creative thought started Apple from nothing, and as a result of Steve Jobs’ deep philosophical underpinnings that guided the long-term vision, his impact spans a greater territory beyond technological contributions.

In 2001, Jobs told Newsweek “. . .I would trade all my technology for an afternoon with Socrates. . .” I believe this truly shows the nature of his inquisitive mind, and helps demonstrate that his inspiration was not from current technology per se, but rather from the possibility to bring powerful, truly innovative concepts to fruition. Jobs showed the importance of arguing for a firm viewpoint, and approaching problems with a relentless passion – all while enjoying the process. I truly hope that his broad, yet focused thinking, honing in on each detail, and constantly challenging the status quo will continue at Apple.

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin 

Stating that use of the term “engagement” is prevalent in social media and marketing is an understatement. In fact, it is so widely used that many of its references seem somewhat misplaced, simply because this term is used to cover an exceedingly vast territory.

When we examine the term “engagement” with precision, I argue that it’s only a component of what brands ultimately want from their audiences. If I’m engaged – it might mean I’m tuned in, focused, and interacting with an entity (i.e. brand) at a particular point in time. But there’s nothing inherent in the term that’s indicative of anything enduring. For instance, it is possible that one engages with a particular brand – only from point A to point B – but fails to expand beyond this small window of interaction.

Aiming for “Increased Brand Engagement” is important; yet brands should also think multiple steps ahead – and aim for Brand Endurance. This allows one to zoom out, position our thinking steps ahead of particular tactics of engagement and treat the brand as an entity with long-term, evolving qualities. In essence, Brand Endurance encompasses Brand Engagement within its own concept; since for the brand to endure over time, its audiences must be engaged. Brand Endurance transcends various particular instances of interactions, or engagement, all leading to greater brand affinity.

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin 

The title of this piece is a catalyst for action – and the superb interview (Part 1) by Rick Mathieson with Jonathan Becher, CMO at SAP shows how identifying subtleties upon a background of similarity can yield substantial impact. To spell out his argument, Becher claims “Digital is Dead” and separates the concept of “digital” down into the components or elements encompassing that overall concept, or SO LO MO - Social, Local, and Mobile.

It is typically said that digital communications humanizes brands – but what the above distinction does, in essence is humanize the actual concept of digital.

It seems that “digital” is is frequently tossed around as an all-encompassing term. Thinking in line with Social, Local, and Mobile allows one to isolate the power of ideas as opposed to excess focus on conforming to a particular social platform. I believe there are also subtle differences among the categories of Social, Local and Mobile. The above distinctions are excellent; yet one must remember that these entities are also very interrelated. For instance, it could be argued that what is “social” is also mobile. While this is true, “social” need not be constrained to mobile/social platforms for the overarching concept of “social” also encompasses social interaction sans social media platforms. I agree with Becher that the generic website will increasingly be custom-generated for the specific person based on their prior actions, along with personal likes and dislikes thereby blurring the distinction between the “social and corporate web.” – Perhaps so-called “corporate homepages” will have the similar experience of our ever-changing, customized Linkedin streams!

“Mobile” can collapse even further – one physically interacts with mobile platforms using their body – digging even deeper, this interaction is a byproduct of one’s attitudes, and how one interacts with mobile sheds some light into the nature of their own personal identity and overall lifestyle. Therefore, a close subcategory of “mobile” includes “physical.” All of these distinctions are vessels into a consumer’s mind, actions and brand interactions. Moreover, a custom, “local” user experience interrelated among the facets of digital, is the epitome of reaching – and influencing an audience through dissecting the components of “digital” and discovering how they complement one another.

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin 

At 3 am I stare at my Twitter feeds with wide – opened eyes, amazed by the depth and continuous content of this platform. The 140 character limit really forces one to adopt a pithy style of writing. Sometimes, I’ll compose a tweet and notice how eliminating some unnecessary words can enhance the message. But what’s most impressive is how the streams are never ceasing – and in turn, this provides a window into each others consciousness and the contents of one’s interests. However the accuracy of that statement might come with some reservation – for some might schedule their tweets in advance; thereby keeping tweets in synch with their attitudes but out of sync with their own, first person stream of consciousness of that moment in time. However – does scheduling tweets alter the twitter experience for the audience? Not in the slightest. If anything, this ability enhances the experience. Yet tweets should be scheduled with great thought and care so one can interact with others in a seamless, non-scheduled manner.

Twitter is rewarding. I’ve met so many fascinating people via this platform. In fact, I like it better than Facebook. So much rich thought fits into 140 characters – and if more needs to be shared, simply insert a link. (i.e. this blog article;) In particular, Twitter is an excellent way for brands to reach out and see What matters to consumers and Why it matters to them. Moreover, this is a far-reaching proposition that should reach beyond one or two Social Media Managers of a Social Media Department. While a centralized twitter account is an excellent idea, the entire organization should get involved in creating, and sharing quality content. If this occurs, brands can truly do justice to the nature of Twitter – a 24/7 Ceaseless Stream of Consciousness and content!

One excellent brand on Twitter, who deserves special attention is Lululemon (@Lululemon) tweeting from Vancouver. 

One quick look at their stream we see:

- More @replies than anything else. This means Lululemon is engaging with particular individuals on twitter – versus only blasting spontaneous tweets about sales/promotions.

- Lululemon keeps their tweets, fresh and relevant – through links to Youtube, their site, and Facebook.

- It doesn’t just end on Twitter. Lululemon keeps the conversation open. For instance, if an individual requires more attention, @Lululemon provides an email address and/or phone number so the discussion can continue. This is very powerful and shows the brand truly cares.

@Lululemon intertwines other users/some brands/pictures in their tweets that speak to their audiences interests.

Lululemon isn’t the only brand doing an excellent job on Twitter. Starbucks is using Twitter as a way to interact with customers and if necessary, extend the discussion off Twitter and to email communication.

My favorite thing about twitter is that it’s constantly changing. Moreover, I like that it is not segmented in “cookie cutter” categories, which I think is one of the drawbacks of the new Google+. However, Lululemon is a culture built on a rich philosophy and engagement. As the brand expands, they should definitely experiment with new platforms such as Google+, since Google+’s “circles” feature is a way to create community among those with like-minded individuals. Google+ circles reduce the ambiguity of Facebook, where everyone is in the same pool as ‘friend’. For instance, a close group of friends who take part in a particular class might have their own “circle”.

Both Lululemon and Starbucks do an excellent job on social media, offering yet another way for these retailers to create connections with their customers. The interaction with the twittersphere is genuine, natural, and maintains a steadfast commitment to their brands.

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin 

Part 2 – Rebranding (If you have not read Part 1, I suggest you do so here) 

Summary: This is part 2 consisting of excerpts of my senior philosophy major thesis at The College of New Jersey that I wrote under the direction of Dr. Consuelo Preti. In part 1 I argued that the jointly necessary and sufficient conditions of a brand are much more vast than a logo. Additionally, I honed in on the subtle differences of a “brand experience” and [the mental state of] “experiencing a brand” through the accumulation of its identity conditions. 

It might be said that experience is the only necessary condition of a brand – however in a similar way that claiming that a brand is a product, this claim, too, is an oversimplification. The brand’s external onlookers (the audience) have experiences; yet this raises the question, “Experience of what?” The experiences are of external content such as product, environment, brand-mark, and logo that are placed together in a manner that provokes a particular experience.  In Real Time, Mellor (1981) argues that experiences are events since an experience is never isolated as one experience but rather we perceive a sequence or “succession” of experiences one after another. In a similar way, “a brand experience” is most accurately described as an “experience of various experiences.” The “brand experience” is an identity condition of the brand extended throughout time in the form of an “event” with temporal parts.

Part 2

Below I will discuss the above conditions of a brand and apply them to an example of a brand that has undergone brand change or ‘’rebranding.’’ I define rebranding as a deliberate attempt of a company to alter the identity conditions of a brand. If a brand is a temporally extended entity, analogous to a continuous “event” (as opposed to a ‘’thing’’) as Mellor argues, then “re-branding” is changing one or more “things” (spatially extended entities) within the “event” or temporally extended brand. However, if re-branding involves “brand change” of a type this leaves for some question – To what extent do the conditions have to change in order for a brand to be qualified as a “changed brand”? It also might be argued that the “changed brand” (a brand that has undergone “rebranding”) at T2 is actually just a different brand altogether.

Simply changing the logo and/or the brand-mark alone do not constitute a re-brand. In addition, keeping everything else the same and only changing the “name” does not constitute a rebrand. A brand has “re-branded” when there is, (1) a distinctive change in experience (2) Change in the audience that the brand intends to appeal to and (3) a change in the type of product that is offered.

Thinking about a brand in this way has large practical application. As I mentioned, most marketing literature isolates what is a “brand” to be marketing vessels behind products without considering other identity conditions. This leads to a segmented approach to brand strategy; of which might consist of considering the aforementioned conditions of a brand, however, by treating a brand as a unified entity composed of various identity conditions, then the strategy retains a holistic focus.

Brands change and update their logos along with visual identity in an attempt to remain modern and relevant to the audience, along with the environment. I will now review some typical modifications that might be proposed in an attempt to “re-brand” or change an existing brand.

Each criterion can be examined to see if changing one of them, or some of them, changes the brand. Changing the logo of Brand A at Time 1 is not a necessary condition to yield an entirely different brand at Time 2. This change does not yield Brand B; but can be argued to constitute an evolution of Brand A. In this case, Brand A is now a changed brand that has persisted. In particular this change of the visual properties perdure over time with the entire brand while other components of the brand endure. In a logo modification, a logo changes from one color to another for example when particular temporal parts of that design are one color or the other (Kurtz, 5). However, I think it can also be said that the logo/brand endure with the product. Moreover, the entire brand perdured, and the visual change that is also stretched across time will influence the audience’s interaction with the brand to varying degrees.

As I mentioned in a previous section, this experience need not be a subjective first person experience but rather the brand must modify all the components that are needed to produce a universal, centralized experience in the audience that is different from the experience at Brand 1. Another component that must be changed is audience. If a brand makes a few changes in sufficient conditions, for example the brand does change but this change is not a “re-brand”. When a brand targets a different audience, they have at least begun the start of re- branding. A re-branding effort does not have to mean the creation of a new brand. As I point out in the example section (Part 3…….), a “re-branded” brand at Time 1 is the same “brand” but an updated time slice of that brand at Time 1.

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin

Selected Works Cited:

Kurtz, Roxanne Marie. “Introduction to Persistence: What’s the problem?” Persistance: Contemporary Readings, ed. Sally Haslanger and Roxanne Marie Kurtz (MA:MIT Press, 2006), 1-27

Mellor, Hugh D. “Selections from Real Time” Cambridge University Press. (1981). Persistance: Contemporary Readings, ed. Sally Haslanger and Roxanne Marie Kurtz (MA:MIT Press, 2006),233-240

Mellor, Hugh D “Real Time” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. (1981)

A thesis comparing two philosophers or philosophies isn’t that exciting for a senior thesis. In my senior philosophy thesis I wanted to present an original argument about a topic I’m passionate about –  so I delved into the metaphysics of a brand at The College of New Jersey, under the direction of Dr. Consuelo Preti. Way more exciting – and a great way to apply philosophical concepts to pertinent branding issues. Through a sequential argument, I creatively applied metaphysics literature on identity over time to brands and inquired whether (and if so, to what extent) a brand at T1 that undergoes a rebranding effort is the same brand at T2. Examining the essence of a “brand” from a philosophical vantage point present insight into its stamina over time. Since the thesis is over 30 pages long, I’m including the most riveting excerpts below. If this appears abstract in nature, please remember it is philosophy thesis! But as I’ve argued, conceptual, big picture thinking is needed in all areas of branding!

As always comments/questions are welcome. Enjoy.

Identity Over Time: The Metaphysics of Brand Change – Part 1

In addition to serving as an intangible asset for a business, I will argue that metaphysically speaking, a brand is a metaphysical entity (concept) that perdures through time. Typically thought of only as a synonym for logo, I argue that the necessary and sufficient conditions of a brand encompass greater territory

I will now stipulate the necessary and sufficient conditions of a brand at Time 1. In a subsequent section, the example that I provide will be an instance of a brand at Time 1 that has undergone brand change or a “rebranding” of the identity conditions. A brand in its entirety is a perduring entity. (Has temporal “parts”) However entities associated with the brand can endure such as a physical product. Now I will break down the various aspects that constitute the temporally extended brand, some of which endure over time. The identity of a brand at Time 1 is a combination of necessary and some sufficient conditions. I will argue that an entity is a brand when the following necessary conditions are met:

- Continuity – Brand-Mark – Audience – Experience – Product – Environment

While attempting to develop the sufficient conditions, I originally concluded that the sufficient conditions are “logo” and “name” for the brand. However, I will proceed with arguing that all the necessary conditions of a brand are jointly sufficient.

I will argue a brand must have some kind of “brand mark” or identifying mark; yet this does not have to be a logo and is not necessarily a logo. On first glance it might seem that “product” is a sufficient condition; yet this depends on what is meant by “product” – if product is a material spatial substance, then it looks like a product might be a sufficient condition of a brand. However, a mere “object” such as a generic table-like structure made out of wood can be a product however it is not alone sufficient for a brand and must be accompanied by the other identity conditions of a brand. Yet as I will point out later in the paper, a brand’s product need not be a special or material entity and can be construed as a service or an entity that one interacts with, such as a website. Therefore ‘product’ will be a necessary identity condition of a brand. A product can be a material, spatial entity but it does not have to be thereby allowing the term “product” to cover a vast ground.

Continuity is a necessary condition of a brand since a brand persists through time as a perduring entity, thereby contributing to the brand’s presence. Without the brand continuing, the other elements will not have any impact. If a brand were to cease from being, it might continue for a while in the minds of the outside observers – but the brand in and of itself would no longer exist. As I will mention below, continuity and the brand environment are closely related in addition to the brand experience. A brand persists through time within a particular environment – whether that be a brand-mark display in public, a website, or in a retail context. Furthermore, a large part – but not all of this continuity is dependant on the consumer experiencing the brand.

A “brand-mark” is not what is typically viewed as a ubiquitous logo or a “graphic/artistic representation of a brand” but rather a distinctive signifier that communicates the brand to a greater audience. A brand-mark is a distinctive “signifier” that designates that brand; for example the Burberry checkered pattern of which is not its logo; the Burberry logo is a graphic representation of a horse. While logos are also brand-marks, not all brand-marks are logos. Actually, in the case of Burberry, this brand seems to be identified more by its brand-mark than its logo. Nonetheless, a distinct mark is necessary to communicate a brand to its audience along with providing it with a visual identity.

It might seem that a name, or a label of said brand must be a necessary condition of a brand. However using the same name to designate the same brand over time seems rather arbitrary. I will discuss this in subsequent sections. Yet a “name” of a brand does not seem to be an enduring entity per se even though it seems to fit Hugh Mellor’s account of a “thing” in his distinction between “things” versus “events.” In this vernacular, the brand is the “event” and what can be a component of a brand, the “name” is a “thing” in light of Mellor’s arguments regarding things versus events. The name of the brand can be modified and therefore the brand does not need a name for it to be the brand even though it can (and should) have a name for general identification purposes.

While some kind of brand-mark is a necessary condition, this brand-mark need not be a name even though that the name of a brand or brands can be a brandmark. For instance, there are “name-less” brands that are generic “store no-name” brands. Even though these brands state they are “nameless” and not the “brand-name [brand]”, the fact that they have a name negates that assertion.

A brand must have an audience that recognizes that brand at instances throughout time. “Audience” and “Experience”, necessary condition are closely related since the audience is what experiences the brand. The audience is the set of external perceivers who is typically, but need not be the consumer. Moreover, the consumer does not have to be one who purchases the product but anyone who comes in contact with any of the jointly necessary and sufficient conditions. The experience that one has with a brand is based on their interactions with the various components of the brand. Essentially, the brand experience is the first-person perception of all of the identity conditions and “experience” itself is a necessary condition.

Brands as ‘experiences’

There is a lot of discussion of brands serving as “experiences” in the marketing literature (Keller, 596). In particular there is discussion of the term “brand community” where products serve as catalysts for a community formation among like-minded brand advocates (Muniz, 412). This research places a large amount of weight on the importance of product as a necessary condition of a brand without considering the other criterion. While I am in agreement that a product is a necessary condition, it is a necessary condition along with the necessary conditions of brand-mark, experience, continuity, and audience. All of these conditions are equally important to constitute a brand; they are, as I would argue, jointly sufficient. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) argue that a “brand community” is formed among people who have an affinity towards a particular product showing that experience is an important factor of popular and successful brands. Yet “experience” is a necessary component for all brands but in a different way than how product, continuity, brand-mark and audience serve as necessary conditions. If we narrow in on the “experience” component, while “experience” is a component of the brand, its impact comes from the audience of which is composed up of individuals who possess a belief about the culmination of brand components.

Experience serves two purposes. The first is the importance of crafting the brand to exhibit and provoke memorable perceptions and beliefs towards the perceptions and overall brand. The second is the audience actually having the state of experiencing the brand by having a belief by way of perceiving the brand.

These two purposes are similar yet distinct. The first, crafting the experience has very little to do with the experience of the brand itself. It is rather a “prerequisite” for the end experience. I’ll now explain what, specifically I mean by “prerequisite for the end experience.” When brand strategists are creating, modifying or updating a brand to be consumer facing, they are not actually experiencing the same brand that the consumers do. Specifically, the strategists and marketers might have a belief about components of the brand or what the experience should be like, yet in the preliminary stages, they are not, exposed to the brand in its entirety. The end result yielded from crafting the brand – is the actual experience that is perceived by the brand’s audience.

It can be argued that the “brand experience” and “experiencing the brand” are different. The brand experience is what brand strategists place together that is intended to provoke a particular “brand experience” from the customer. However, “experiencing the brand” is the actual state of a person “taking in” or being exposed to that “brand experience” through the accumulation of its identity conditions.

What makes “experiencing a brand” unique from a different type of experience such as experiencing pain is that the brand’s content (the brand’s identity conditions) is the experience along with having the property of being experienced. Therefore, the components of a brand fit nicely together so that the brand can be a “brand experience.” I define experience as any interaction that the audience has with the temporally extended brand including the product or service itself. It might be said that experience is the only necessary condition of a brand – however in a similar way that claiming that a brand is a product, this claim, too, is an oversimplification. The brand’s external onlookers (the audience) have experiences; yet this raises the question, “Experience of what?” The experiences are of external content such as product, environment, brand-mark, and logo that are placed together in a manner that provokes a particular experience. In Real Time Mellor (1981) argues that experiences are events since an experience is never isolated as one experience but rather we perceive a sequence or “succession” of experiences one after another. In a similar way, “a brand experience” is most accurately described as an “experience of various experiences.” The “brand experience” is an identity condition of the brand extended throughout time in the form of an “event” with temporal parts.

The various brand experiences are perceived in a particular environment. As a result, different conditions of a brand will be tailored to the needs of the audience at a particular environment or context for a maximum experience. Experiencing a brand that has various retail stores will ensure the brand is continuous by expressing the brand in different settings. Interacting with any of the brand’s identity conditions in any format (such as a brand’s website) are all forms of experiencing the brand.

Despite the fact that some of the marketing literature argues that memorable brands can cause strong affinity from their audience, this literature still does not isolate the entity of “brand” and provide a complete analysis of what the term “brand” denotes along with not discussing the nature of that identity continuing over time. Therefore, the traditional marketing literature seems to focus on brands as representing products and what branding practices are employed to meet an end of “enhanced (customer) loyalty, and enhanced price premiums” (Keller, 595). While product is a necessary condition of a brand, I argue that simply the positioning and selling of a product is not, in and of itself constitutive of a brand. Typically brands are thought of as marketing vessels behind products. Also, often brand are seen as signifiers of different types of products. If this were the case, then it looks like a logo or brand-mark would be the only necessary condition of a brand. As I’ve argued in prior sections, I contend that this assertion is an oversimplification. Moreover, if the product is no longer available, does the entire brand cease as well? Maybe; however the question becomes for how long would the brand continue to last? Examining this question through the manner in which marketing literature tends to understand brands, the answer might be that the brand’s existence depends on the existence of product. If the product no longer exists, the brand would cease alongside. However, there is another possibility. Since “experience” is a jointly necessary and sufficient condition of a brand, it is possible that brands that have not continued over time still cause similar types of experiences in consumers. While the product may no longer exist, as I will explain momentarily, the practice of brand change or “re-branding” – a holistic modification of identity conditions including but not limited to product and experience, presents a way to prevent the potential demise of the brand.

Stay Tuned for Part 2

Jesse de Agustin

@JdeAgustin

Selected Works Cited

Keller, Kevin Lane. “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge.” The Journal of Consumer Research 29.4 (2003): 595-600

Mellor, Hugh D. “Selections from Real Time” Cambridge University Press. (1981). Persistance: Contemporary Readings, ed. Sally Haslanger and Roxanne Marie Kurtz (MA:MIT Press, 2006),233-240

Mellor, Hugh D “Real Time” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. (1981)

Muiez, Albert M. O’Guinn, Thomas C. “Brand Community” The Journal of Consumer Research. 27.4 (2001): 412-432.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: