Corporate communication is the process that translates the corporate identity into a corporate image. The identity needs to be communicated to all employees, customers and shareholders if it is to have any value. The role of design within this is to visually signify what a company stands for.
Pelsmacker, Geuens and Bergh (2004) point out the various benefits that a strong brand offers for a company and the consumer. A strong brand can assure the consumer in providing a constant level of quality and enables the consumer to assess value and quality simply by knowing the brand and its image. If the brand's identity is successfully communicated the company attains a position to charge a price-premium for the benefits offered. Furthermore, a well-known brand presents trustworthiness and has the opportunity to develop favourable attitudes for it
(Pelsmacker, Geuens & Bergh, 2004).
Barnes (2003) points out that it is of importance to build a strong brand image since this is one of the offerings that go with the product. The brand image is built up by associations in the consumers mind. Barnes further points out that “the extent to which meaning is present in a customer relationship depends entirely on the perceptions of the customer” (Barnes, 2003, p. 179). Creating value for customers is what leads to their satisfaction of the brand and their loyalty towards it. The author furthermore argues that the customer/brand relationship can be investigated by looking into the different aspects of meaning created in the customer mind. In a sense it is a matter of creating a personality of the brand by the creation of brand characteristics and attributes and can lead to an emotion based relationship with the brand. Secondly, the brand must try to reflect what core values that it stands for and what makes it so special in comparison to other brands. This will help the customers in identifying with the brand. Finally, to come even closer to the customer, a brand can mean something special to a certain customer group. This is enduring customer loyalty and the brand has a lot in common with the customers in things that really matter to them and where it even helps the customer in defining himself (Barnes, 2003). Aaker (1996) presents a model for the, value proposition that consists the benefits that a company offers in relation to its price. It is significant to propose benefits to the customer that will enable the brand to be highly valued in the consumers' minds so that it justifies a price premium.
Barnes (2003) defines the functional benefits as values that are created if the brand is practical and saves the customer time and money. Emotional benefits are values that are created when a company is successful in making customers feel respect, understanding, recognition or special. If a company is successful in creating high levels of functional and emotional value it earns customer loyalty (Barnes, 2003). Self-expressive benefits are about the psychological reward that the consumer obtains when a brand is a symbol for status (Pelsmacker, Geuens & Bergh, 2004). Aaker’s (1996) model shows that if a brand succeeds to convince the consumers that the benefits overweigh the price it can sell the value proposition. A brand that is considered being overpriced carries the meaning that the consumers do not appreciate the benefits to be valuable enough to be worth the price. However, it should be kept in mind that a high price can be perceived as an indication of quality, as can be in the luxury industry (Aaker, 1996).
The brand identity is how the company wants the brand to be perceived by the consumers (Aaker, 2000). It is important to construct a message in how to clearly show the identity of the brand to the consumers. To be able to communicate the identity to the consumers it is of great significance that the understanding of the brand identity, within the company, is clear (Kapferer, 1998). Aperia and Back (2004) explain the difference between brand identity and brand image in a concise way “brand identity is thus the sum of signals sent by the company, while brand image is the picture of the brand that emerges in the consumers' minds” (Aperia & Back, 2004).
Despite most Western cultures being regarded as materialist, they are not the only ones subjected to this way of thinking. Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) demonstrate this by arguing that “in both Western and non-western cultures, attachment to particular favourite objects as symbols need not be viewed as something that is evil or bad,” as the “adoption of alien objects was merely viewed as inevitable, if regrettable.”
When theorising brand management there are several ideas of social identity that suggest the ‘self’ is not a solitary being, but is continuously defined by its context. One of them (Reicher, 1987) believes that individuals possess two types of identities – a social and personal one. The social one represents the self as a group member and the latter the self as a unique individual. Belk (1988) considers ‘sense of self’ and ‘identity’ as being one and the same. He regards consumers as having an ‘extended self’ which includes an interior self and all the items they wish to incorporate within it. This implies that one can take different identities within the same context, for instance who we are at home with our family versus who we are at work with our colleagues and follows on Reicher’s (1987) view that context shapes who we are.
Arnould & Price (1993) suggest that individuals form a social entity and a world of meanings for and of themselves from the moment they become members of a group. Being social creatures, humans can easily switch from one persona to another in our interactions with others.
The concept of personas were developed early 1980´s. Brechlin describes the use of personas in defining the market, where market segmentation and personas can be used as complementary tools that organizations can use to design and sell successful products.
There are also criticisms of the use of Personas. According to Chapman and Milham, (2006) the most serious limitation of the Persona method is that it is difficult, or even impossible, to verify that the personas are accurate. Personas are fictional and therefore there is no clear way to determine how many users are represented by any given persona.
Even if the use of personas has both benefits and risks, it is a useful tool that can be utilized to understand how customers perceive a company, and what kind of products and services they expect from it. By looking through the eyes of a persona you can better understand their image of the company and its products.
Cooper (1999) describes personas as not being real people, but they represent real people throughout the design process of a project. They are hypothetical archetypes of actual users. Although they are imaginary, they should be defined with significant rigor and precision. They are not really made up; they are discovered as a by-product of the customer investigation process.
Personas are created to represent the different customers or user types that might use a product. Personas are given characteristics and are assumed to be in particular environments based on known users’ requirements so that these elements can be taken into consideration when designing the product. By putting a face and identity on the user, it is easier for the design and development team to identify with and understand the needs and expectations of the user. They make it clear exactly what the users requirements are, so that it can be defined what the product must do. Every project gets its own cast of characters, which consists of anywhere from three to twelve unique personas. The design team does not design for all of them, but they are all useful for articulating the user population. Some are defined only to make it clear that they are not those designed for. According to Olsen (2004), it is important to categorise the users into different persona priorities. Olsen suggests the following prioritizations:
- Focal – Primary users of the product who are its main focus. The design is optimized for them. At least one persona must be a focal persona.
- Secondary – Also use the product. The design should satisfy them if possible.
- Unimportant – Low-priority users, including infrequent, unauthorized or unskilled users, as well as those who misuse the product. The design does not need to satisfy them.
- Affected – They don’t use the product themselves, but are affected by it.
- Exclusionary – The product is not designed for them.
Cooper (2004) also states that if there are more than three focal personas, the design problem is too big. He recommends that the product then be split into more than one product or overall interface to avoid overwhelming users with too much complexity and causing the product to lose a clear focus.
While personas are typically created only for users of a product, it’s important to keep in mind the interests of other stakeholders, such as, management teams, the marketing team, the sales team, regulatory, business partners, etc. Even if it is not common to create personas for these stakeholders, it may be useful to create minimal personas for one or more of them – usually focusing on their goals – to make sure their interests are taken into account.
Brand management is difficult to define. There are many definitions; Rodney D. Ryder (2000; P83) has the definition that ‘’Brand management is the application of marketing techniques to a specific product, product line or brand. It seeks to increase the product's perceived value to the customer and thereby increase brand franchise and brand equity.’’
Clearly, it is important that brand management is working towards a common goal. There are numerous businesses that excel in doing so. A good example is Apple. People are drawn to brands such as Apple because they are selling their own ideas back to them, “they are selling the most powerful ideas that we have in our culture such as transcendence and community, even democracy itself, these are all brand meanings now” (Klein, 2007). Added value believe “It‘s not how we feel about brands. It‘s about how brands make us feel”
(Added Value 2008).
This has much resonance when concluding the statement by De Chernatony, proving that Consumers do construct and make sense of the world through interpreting brands as symbols and building their lifestyles and surrounding themselves with brands that show an image of their ideal self and the self that they want others to perceive them as.
References
Aaker, D.A. - (1996) - Building strong brands. New York: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
Aaker, J.L. - (2000) - "Dimensions of brand personality", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No.8, pp.347-56 Dublin
Aperia T, Back R. - (2004) - Brand Relations Management: Bridging the Gap between Brand Promise and Brand Delivery
Arnould E J, Wallendorf. M - (1988) - Journal of Consumer Research - Vol. 14, No. 4: pp. 531 "My Favorite Things": A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage.
Belk R W. - (1988) - Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 15, Issue 2, 139-168 “Possessions and the Extended Self”
Cooper, A - (1999) - The Inmates are Running the Asylum. SAMS
Chapman, C.N. & Milham, R. - (2006) - The personas' new clothes. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) 2006, San Francisco, CA.
Davis, S. - (1995) - "A vision for the year 2000: brand asset management", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No.4, pp.65-82. Chicago
De Chernatony, L., McDonald, M. - (1992) - Creating Powerful Brands, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford University Press Oxford.
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M. & Van den Bergh, J. - (2004) - Marketing Communications: A European perspective (2nd ed.). Essex: Person Educated Limited.
Ind, N. - (1992) - Corporate Image, Kogan Page, London.
Kapferer, J N. - (1998) - Strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining
brand equity long term (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Klein. N - (2001) - No Logo - Flamingo; New Eng edition
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., & Wong V. - (1999) - Principles of
marketing. (2nd ed) England: Prentice Hall.
Ryder R D - (2000) - Brands Trademarks and Advertising, Lexis Nexis Butterworth’s.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. - (1987) - Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell
Articles
Barnes, J.G. - (2003) - Establishing meaningful customer relationships: why some
companies and brands mean more to their customers.
Websites
Olsen G. (2004) - Making Personas More Powerful: Details to Drive Strategic and Tactical Design -
Added Value (2008) - "Why does a consumer choose one brand over another?" - http://www.added-value.com/AV/Portals/0/SA%20Journal%20of%20Marketing_July%2006_%20.pdf
