Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BASE Paper 1 PDF
BASE Paper 1 PDF
Exploring branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands: evidence from India
Bikram Jit Singh Mann Mandeep Kaur
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bikram Jit Singh Mann Mandeep Kaur, (2013),"Exploring branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands: evidence
from India", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 6 - 17
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421311298650
Downloaded on: 19 March 2016, At: 02:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8089 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Jing Theng So, Andrew Grant Parsons, Sheau-Fen Yap, (2013),"Corporate branding, emotional attachment and brand loyalty:
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
the case of luxury fashion branding", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp.
403-423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0032
Lisa Wood, (2000),"Brands and brand equity: definition and management", Management Decision, Vol. 38 Iss 9 pp. 662-669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740010379100
Judith H. Washburn, Brian D. Till, Randi Priluck, (2000),"Co-branding: brand equity and trial effects", Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss 7 pp. 591-604 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760010357796
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:534948 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to analyze and compare the branding strategies used in the three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the literature review, a more comprehensive list of branding strategies is proposed. A content analysis of
600 randomly selected brands, 200 from each sector, is performed. The branding strategies used in the three sectors are explained and MANOVA is
conducted to test the hypotheses about differences in the branding strategies across the three sectors.
Findings – The results reveal that the branding strategies vary across the three sectors. Single corporate brand strategy is predominantly used for
durables and credence services. On the other hand, in case of FMCG and experience services, individual brand type endorsed by the corporate brand
type is the most frequently used branding strategy. Thus, there is a trend towards corporate branding as corporate brand type is popular in all the
sectors. Also, other than the single corporate brand strategy, as in case of durables and credence services, single brand type strategy is rarely used. For
FMCG brands and experience services brands, companies are trying to leverage brand equity of two or more brand types.
Practical implications – The paper offers insights for designing branding strategies when branding a product/service. Brand managers may rely on
corporate brand type when risk associated with a purchase is high, as in case of durables and credence services. However, when the risk associated is
low, as in case of FMCG and experience services, individual brand type may be preferred, but at the same time, it should be endorsed by corporate
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
brand type.
Originality/value – This study adds value to the growing body of literature on branding strategies by identifying a more comprehensive and simplistic
list of branding strategies which is a major contribution of the paper. Further, this is one of a very few empirical studies on branding strategies and is a
pioneering attempt to evaluate the branding strategies in the FMCG vis-à-vis services vis-à-vis durables sectors. It empirically substantiates that the
three sectors are heterogeneous among themselves and homogeneous within themselves with respect to their branding strategies.
Keywords Brands, Corporate brand, Family brand, Individual brand, Branding strategies content analysis, India, Fast moving consumer goods
6
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
characteristics, services are associated with high risk and high branding strategies of the three sectors. This is followed by a
involvement (Zeithaml, 1981; Murray and Schlacter, 1990; discussion of results. Finally, the paper is concluded with
Mitra et al., 1999). Finally, a durable good is a manufactured suggestions for future research.
product capable of a long, useful life (McColl-Kennedy and
Kiel, 1999) and survives many uses (Kotler, 2000), such as
furniture, household appliances, motor vehicles etc. It
involves high transaction amount, high risk, and high Identifying branding strategies
consumer involvement and is quite less frequently The first step towards researching different branding
purchased. Once the customer purchases the durable good, strategies is identification of the entire range of branding
he/she is temporarily out of the market for that good until it strategies. Past literature suggests several taxonomies for
needs replacement. Thus, different branding strategies would classifying branding strategies as shown below:
be suitable for the three sectors, that is, FMCG, services and 1 Gray and Smeltzer (1985):
durables, as the three sectors differ from each other in their .
Single entity.
characteristics. .
Brand dominance.
Various researchers have discussed the appropriateness of .
Equal dominance.
different branding strategies for the three sectors. Individual .
Mixed dominance.
brand type is advocated to be the most appropriate for .
Corporate dominance.
FMCG companies (Pierce and Mouskanas, 2002; 2 Murphy (1987):
Vijayraghavan, 2003). But, Laforet and Saunders (1994, .
Corporate dominant systems.
2005) find that in actual practice, FMCG companies are .
Brand dominant systems.
using individual brand type in combination with corporate or .
Balanced systems.
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
7
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
12 Rahman and Areni (2009): it equal dominance strategy while Murphy (1987) names it
.
Inter-organisational architecture: balanced strategy whereas Laforet and Saunders (1994) name
– network brands; it dual branding strategy. Third, endorsement strategy when
– support brands; and corporate brand receives less emphasis than product brand.
– co-brands. Endorsement strategy has further been classified as strong
.
Intra-organisational architecture: endorsement, linked name and token endorsement. Laforet
– branded division; and Saunders (2005) argue that companies can also use more
– branded features; and than two brands together for a product/service, and call it
– branded programs. multi-branded strategy.
Strebinger (2004) has defined branding strategies based on
the number of product categories and target groups a
Keller (2008) proposes four hierarchical types of a brand:
branding strategy serves. He proposes five types of branding
1 Corporate/company brand (conglomerate or company or
strategies: first, Corporate branding strategy that adopts a
subsidiary name).
uniform brand for all product categories and target groups.
2 Family brand (brand used in more than one product
Second, target group branding strategy where a company uses
category).
a different brand name for each target segment. Third,
3 Individual brand (brand restricted to one product
product branding strategy in which a different brand name is
category only).
used for each product category. Fourth, product and target
4 Modifier (a means to signal refinement or differences in
specific branding strategy where there is a different brand for
brands).
each combination of target group and product category. Fifth,
This classification is from the individual product/service brand family strategy in which hierarchically ranked brands
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
8
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
brand, where group brand is the highest in hierarchy. Group strategy is the one of single corporate brand strategy, single
brand is defined as the conglomerate name which is used in house brand strategy, single family brand strategy or single
branding products/services. For example, conglomerates like individual brand strategy. When multiple brand types are used
Reliance, Tata etc. use their conglomerate names for branding together, various possible combinations of the four brand
various products/services. Company brand is the company types and five visibility styles result into various branding
name which is used in branding products/services. For strategies.
example, Essel Group has Zee Entertainment Enterprises Thus, based on the four brand types, we have identified
Ltd., whose various channels are named as Zee, which is a various branding strategies which differ in terms of the extent
company brand. House brand is defined as the company’s of visibility of the four brand types. This simplistic
subsidiary name which is used in branding products/services. classification of branding strategies adds value to the
For instance, Gillette, a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble literature by resolving the confusion existing in the
(P&G), is used to brand various products. Family brand is a literature. Further, this original classification would offer
brand name which is not a company or a group name and is pertinent marketing intelligence to brand managers that will
used in more than one product/service categories, such as help them in designing more effective branding strategies.
Maggi brand owned by Nestle is used for a number of product
categories such as noodles, sauces, soups, coconut milk
Conceptual framework and research hypotheses
powder etc. Individual brand is a brand name, other than
company or group name, which is restricted to essentially one The very nature of the three sectors indicates that the
product category such as Ariel detergent by P&G. branding strategies used to communicate with consumers
For the purpose of this study, taking cue from Keller would be different, that is, the three sectors would differ in the
(2008), group and company brand types are clubbed together usage and the extent of visibility of the four brand types. The
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
under single category called corporate brand. Hence, we have following discussion presents the varying usage and visibility
identified four brand types namely corporate, house, family of the four brand types across the three sectors. From the
and individual brand types. discussion, four hypotheses concerning corporate, house,
A company can choose either one or two or sometimes even family and individual brand types are developed.
more than two of these brand types while branding a product/ Gurhan-Canli and Batra (2004) argue that if the risk
service. If a single brand type is chosen, obviously, it would be associated is higher, corporate associations are more
the only visible brand type for the product/service. When important in consumer evaluations. While there is
multiple brand types are chosen, each brand type can vary in necessarily some degree of risk which accompanies all
its relative visibility as compared to other brand types. The purchases, it is advocated that more risk is associated with
different possible visibility styles for a brand type along with services than goods (Zeithaml, 1981; Mitra et al., 1999).
their meanings are given in Table I. Therefore, it is suggested that services should be corporate
The relationship of different visibility styles and the four branded and should not be individualised (Berry et al., 1988;
brand types leads to multiple combinations and hence de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1999; Berry, 2000;
multiple types of branding strategies are available to McDonald et al., 2001; Burt and Sparks, 2002). Hem et al.
companies. When single brand type is used, the branding (2003) argue that durables are also associated with high level
9
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
of risk due to the possibility of the expected financial loss reason as to why FMCG, durables and services sectors should
being substantial. Consumers may also lack the technical differ when it comes to the usage of house brand type. Hence,
knowledge necessary to assess quality of most of the durables, we anticipate that the visibility of house brand type would be
which may further increase risk. Thus, corporate brand type is similar in the three sectors. Therefore, we posit the following
also expected to be a preferred brand type for durables. hypothesis:
Furthermore, according to Berens et al. (2005) corporate H4. Visibility of the house brand type is same in the three
associations have a stronger influence on consumers when sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
consumer involvement is high. Due to high risk, there is
higher consumer involvement in purchasing services and
durables. This again reinforces the importance of corporate Research methodology
brand type for services and durables. FMCG sector is
characterised by low involvement and low risk due to low A content analysis of 600 brands is performed to explore the
purchase transaction amount and high frequency of purchase branding strategies used in the three sectors. Kassarjian
(East, 1997; Kotler, 2000). Therefore, FMCG companies do (1977) defines content analysis as a scientific, objective,
not prefer corporate branding. Based on the above, we quantitative and generalizable description of communications
propose the following hypothesis: content. In marketing, various studies have been conducted
using this approach (Tse et al., 1989; Carlson et al., 1993;
H1. Visibility of the corporate brand type differs across the Laforet and Saunders, 1994, 2005).
three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
This should be more in the durables and services Sample selection
sectors than in the FMCG sector. Each year, Business Today gives a list of 500 India’s Most
Based on the above stated discussion, it can be expected that Valued Companies (BT 500) on the basis of average market
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
individual brand type is not suitable for services and durables, value for the April-September period. For the present study,
but is more suitable brand type for FMCG companies. Keller the 19th edition of BT 500 list given in 2010 was considered.
(2008) also asserts that FMCG companies find it difficult to Web sites of all the 500 companies were visited to list the
create a meaningful corporate brand around heterogeneous brands sold by each company. Only B2C products/services
collection of products and resort to individual branding. were considered. Further, the brands were segregated as
Further, individual brand type is also preferred in the FMCG FMCG, services and durables. For making sampling frame,
sector as it allows accurate positioning in the highly all FMCG brands were listed while only those service brands
segmented and competitive FMCG markets (Laforet and that have an exclusive web site and those durable brands that
Saunders, 1999; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Pierce and have packaging (such as consumer electronics, watches etc)
Mouskanas, 2002; Vijayraghavan, 2003; Rajagopal and were included. Durables like automobiles were excluded as
Sanchez, 2004). Hence, we postulate the following these do not have any packaging. The sample frame consisted
hypothesis: of 818 FMCG brands, 245 services brands and 224 durables
brands. Using random sampling table, 200 brands were
H2. Visibility of the individual brand type differs across the
randomly selected from each sector.
three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
This should be more in the FMCG sector than in the
Unit of measurement
durables and services sectors. The unit of measurement for content analysis in this study is a
Family brand type is used to link common associations to product or service brand. For FMCG and durables,
multiple but distinct products. It is similar to corporate brand packaging has been content analysed by visiting various
type as both brand types are applied across a range of product retail outlets whereas for services, web sites of the services
categories. However, these are different because family brand brands have been content analysed. Unlike goods, services do
name is distinct from corporate brand name (Keller, 2008). not have any packaging that can be analysed and therefore
As services and durables sectors are associated with high risk, alternative source had to be selected. A pre-test of various
corporate associations are more important for these two sources of communication of 25 service brands (eight banks,
sectors and hence corporate brand is used instead of family three insurance, seven retail, three telecom and four hotels)
brand across a range of offerings. Turley and Moore (1995) was conducted to find the most appropriate source revealing
also argue that family brand type is not relevant for services the branding strategy. The sources of communication content
sector. As FMCG sector includes less risky purchases, family analysed in pre-testing included web sites and advertisements
brand type is used here to create salience among similar plus two other sources depending on the type of service
product categories. Hence, we hypothesize: (banks – ATM card, pass book; insurance products –
insurance policy, instalment slip; retail – display outside the
H3. Visibility of the family brand type differs across the
store, loyalty card; telecom – SIM card cum connection
three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
details packet, post-paid bill or pre-paid recharge coupon as
This should be more in the FMCG sector than in the
the case may be; hotels – menu, bill). For each service brand,
durables and services sectors.
the branding strategy was found to be the same regardless of
Laforet and Saunders (1994) advocate that house brand type the source of communication meaning thereby that the
is essentially used for two reasons: first, when a diversified companies are resorting to integrated marketing
company has divisions in tightly defined markets, and second, communications (IMC) which is defined by Clow and
when acquisitions are made and the subsidiary is given some Baack (2007) as the communication strategy in which a
independence. The three sectors cannot be distinguished company creates harmony in transmitting messages to its
based on these two reasons. We could not find any theoretical stakeholders through different mediums. Since consistency
10
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
was found in the various sources, any communication source Table II reveals that in the FMCG sector, corporate brand
indicating branding strategy was found to be suitable for type is used in 76 per cent of the cases. It is used as single
content analysis. Web sites were selected as a source of brand type in 16.4 per cent of the cases and in combination
information for content analysis of services brands for the with other brand types in 83.6 per cent of the cases, most
purpose of homogeneity as most of the services brands were often as an endorser (34.7 per cent) or as a token endorser
found to have exclusive web sites. However, web sites were (50.4 per cent). The usage of house brand type is almost
not found to be appropriate for analyzing branding strategies negligible (4.5 per cent). Family brand type is used in 47 per
of tangible goods as there are very few such brands having cent of the cases. It is used as single brand type in 19.1 per
separate web sites. cent of the cases and in combination with other brand types in
80.9 per cent of the cases. It is most often used with
Coding sheet and measurement used prominent visibility (75 per cent) or as an endorser (18.4 per
In order to know the branding strategies used in the three cent) when used in combination with other brand types.
sectors, sampled brands were examined. Based on the Individual brand type is used in 47 per cent of the cases. It is
different visibility styles of brand types given in Table I, a used as single brand type in 13.8 per cent of the cases and in
coding sheet (Appendix, Figure A1) was prepared for the combination with other brand types in 86.2 per cent of the
purpose of content analysis. First, basic details relating to cases, most often with prominent visibility (76.5 per cent) or
company name, brand name and sector were noted for each with balanced visibility (20.9 per cent).
sampled package/web site. Following this, the brand types In case of services, as depicted by Table II, corporate brand
used were identified and their visibility styles were noted. The type is used in 88 per cent of the cases. It is frequently used as
allocation of brand types to different visibility styles was single brand type (55.7 per cent) as well as in combination
judgemental, taking into account all the factors that affect the with other brand types (44.3 per cent). It is most often used as
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
relative prominence of the brand such as its relative size, an endorser (52.6 per cent), with balanced visibility (19.2 per
boldness, colour and position (Laforet and Saunders, 1994, cent) or as a token endorser (16.7 per cent) when used in
2005, 2007; Keller, 2008). The two authors and one combination with other brand types. Individual brand type is
independent researcher were trained and served as coders. another frequently used brand type (44 per cent), which is
The coders separately coded all sample brands. Minimal most often used in combination with other brand types (84.1
differences were identified and were resolved through per cent), most frequently with prominent visibility (77 per
discussion. cent) or with balanced visibility (18.9 per cent). House (3.5
Next, for every sampled package and web site as the case per cent) and family brand types (4.5 per cent) are less often
may be, each brand type was given a visibility score on the used. Literature on degree of risk in services brings out that
scale ranging from 0 to 8, 8 for being the only brand type, 7 services can be classified as credence and experience services.
for being prominently visible, 6 for balanced type, 5 for strong Therefore, analysis of services is extended by classifying
endorsement, 4 for weak endorsement, 3 for linked name, 2 if services as credence and experience services. Credence
used as token endorser, 1 if only disclosed and 0 for absence services are highly risky services that cannot be evaluated by
of the brand type. The three sectors are statistically compared average consumers even after purchase or consumption
based on the visibility scores of the four brand types. Mean because they lack the technical expertise or the means in
and standard deviation (SD) of visibility scores of each brand terms of time and money to make a reliable assessment
type are calculated for the three sectors. Multivariate analysis (Nelson, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973; Zeithaml, 1981).
of variance (MANOVA) has been performed using PASW Experience services are less risky services that can be
19.0 to test the hypotheses. Box’s M test and Bartlett test of evaluated after purchase or during consumption (Shapiro,
Sphericity are used to test the assumptions of MANOVA. 1983). Based on the examples cited in past literature,
Further, multivariate and univariate effects are examined to experience services content analysed in this study include
investigate whether the differences in visibility of the four retail outlets, beauty salons, telecom services, vacations,
brand types across the three sectors are statistically significant. hotels, aviation, job and marriage consultancy, media
Finally, post hoc Tukey tests are conducted for pair wise entertainment, and education, and credence services include
comparison of the three sectors to determine the differences financial and health services. The sample of 200 service
in the branding strategies of the sectors. brands comprises 131 experience service brands and 69
credence service brands. Results reveal that single corporate
brand type is most often used branding strategy among
Results and discussion
credence services (97.1 per cent). Combination of brand
The results are presented in two parts: first part reports the types, such as corporate and individual brand types, is most
various types of branding strategies used in the three sectors frequently used branding strategy among experience services
and has been sub-headed as “Branding strategies used in the (64.5 per cent), followed by single corporate brand type
three sectors”. Second part is dedicated to the comparison of strategy (24.4 per cent).
the visibilities of the four brand types across the three sectors Analysis from Table II relating to the durables sector reveals
and is referred to as “MANOVA results and hypotheses that single corporate brand type is the most dominating
testing”. branding strategy in this sector (82.6 per cent). It is used in
combination with other brand types in 17.4 per cent of the
Branding strategies used in the three sectors cases, either with balanced visibility (87.9 per cent) or as an
Table II reports the various types of branding strategies used endorser (12.1 per cent). Individual brand type is used in 19.5
in FMCG, services and durables sectors based on the per cent of the cases, most often in combination with other
frequency of usage of the four brand types in a sector with brand types (87.2 per cent). It is used with balanced visibility
different visibility styles. (85.3 per cent) or prominent visibility (14.7 per cent) when
11
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
Percentage 16.4 44.5 19.1 13.8 55.7 42.9 11.1 15.9 82.6 80 0 12.8
Combination of multiple
brand types Prominently visible 2 0 57 62 6 4 0 57 0 0 0 5
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands
12
Percentage 34.7 40 18.4 2.5 52.6 0 37.5 4 12.1 100 0 0
Linked name 5 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage 3.9 0 0 0 3.8 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0
Token endorser 64 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage 50.4 0 0 0 16.7 0 37.5 0 0 0 0 0
Total 127 5 76 81 78 4 8 74 33 1 0 34
Percentage 83.6 55.5 80.9 86.2 44.3 57.1 88.9 84.1 17.4 20 0 87.2
Totala 152 9 94 94 176 7 9 88 190 5 0 39
Percentage 76 4.5 47 47 88 3.5 4.5 44 95 2.5 0 19.5
Note: a Percentages in each sector do not add to 100 per cent because more than one brand type can be used for a single brand
Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
used in combination with other brand types. Usage of house Tables IV and V depicts that multivariate statistic for
brand type (2.5 per cent) is negligible with no case of family MANOVA is statistically significant (Wilks’ l ¼ 0:535,
brand type being reported. Fð8; 1188:000Þ ¼ 54:573, p , 0:01, partial eta
In summary, the above analysis reveals that different types squared ¼ 0:269, power ¼ 1:000) indicating that the
of branding strategies are used in the three sectors. visibilities of the four brand types taken together differ
Combination of multiple brand types such as corporate, across the three sectors. Follow-up univariate tests of group
family and individual brand types is most frequently used differences by examining the F-ratio (Tables IV and V;
branding strategy in the FMCG sector. In the services sector, indicate that visibilities of three out of four brand types differ
single corporate brand type is the most often used branding significantly across the three sectors (p , 0:01). In particular,
strategy for credence services while combination of multiple the F value for corporate, family and individual brand types is
brand types, such as corporate and individual brand types, is significant (p , 0:01), while it is insignificant for house brand
most often used branding strategy for experience services. type (p . 0:03). Thus, all the hypotheses, H1, H2, H3 and H4
Finally, in the durables sector, single corporate brand strategy are supported, meaning thereby that the differences across the
is most commonly used. three sectors are significant with respect to the visibilities of
the corporate, family and individual brand types, while
MANOVA results and hypotheses testing insignificant for the house brand type. Table VI reports results
The above analysis depicts that there are differences in the of post hoc Tukey’s HSD Test for pair-wise comparison of the
branding strategies across the three sectors. To know whether three sectors for the three brand types that had significant
these differences are statistically significant, visibilities of the univariate F values.
four brand types namely corporate, house, family and While examining Table VI, we find that the visibility of
individual brand types in the three sectors are compared corporate brand type significantly differs across the three
using MANOVA and hypotheses are thus tested. Sector type
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
13
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
Table V Univariate tests for group differences in brand type visibility across three sectors
Hypotheses Dependent variable Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial Eta squared Observed powera Result
H1 Corporate brand type 1588.463 2 794.232 149.218 0.000 * 0.333 1.000 Supported
H2 Individual brand type 486.803 2 243.402 23.732 0.000 * 0.074 1.000 Supported
H3 Family brand type 1280.443 2 640.222 149.088 0.000 * 0.333 1.000 Supported
H4 House brand type 1.373 2 0.687 0.395 0.674 0.001 0.077 Supported
Notes: a Computed using alpha ¼ 0:03 (Boneferroni adjustment (Hair et al., 2009)); * Significant at 1 per cent level
Table VI Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests for individual group differences
Dependent variable Sector I Sector J Mean difference (I-J) * * Std. error Sig.
Corporate brand type FMCG Services 22.43 0.231 0.000 *
FMCG Durables 23.95 0.231 0.000 *
Services Durables 21.52 0.231 0.000 *
Individual brand type FMCG Services 0.21 0.320 0.798
FMCG Durables 2.01 0.320 0.000 *
Services Durables 1.80 0.320 0.000 *
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
1999), however, our findings suggest that the characteristics branding strategy is found to be equally popular in the three
of a sector do have an influence on this decision. sectors.
Our results reveal that corporate brand type is frequently The present study also finds that family brand type appears
used in all the three sectors, but with different visibility styles. rarely in both the services and durables sectors, while it
In case of durables and credence services, it is used either as appears significantly in the FMCG sector. As services and
the single brand type or with prominent visibility. Contrarily, durables sectors are associated with high risk, corporate brand
in case of FMCG and experience services, single corporate is preferred over family brand in these two sectors to create
brands are not used; rather they are used as endorsers. Past salience across a range of offerings and hence, family brand is
literature suggests that the use of corporate brand positively seldom used in these two sectors. FMCG sector is associated
influences consumer preferences (Andreassen and Lindestad, with low risk; therefore family brand is used in this sector for
1998; Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002; Balmer and Gray, 2003; creating synergies across a group of related products.
Czellor and Palazzo, 2004; Souiden et al., 2006; Anisimova, The findings reveal that the extent of usage of individual
2007). However, this influence also depends on the visibility brand type is the same in case of FMCG and services sectors.
of the corporate brand in communications, that is, higher the This may be because individual brand type is extensively used
visibility of the corporate brand, more is its influence on the in case of FMCG and experience services, and an overview of
consumers (Saunders and Guoqun, 1996; Berens et al., 2002; the sample of services brands reveals that more experience
Berens et al., 2005). Also, higher the risk and consumer services brands than credence services brands are included in
involvement, more do the consumers rely on corporate this study. Individual brand type is frequently used for FMCG
associations (Gurhan-Canli and Batra, 2004; Berens et al., and experience services essentially for two reasons. First,
2005). Supporting these past findings, our results show that FMCG and experience services are less risky. Researchers
the corporate brand is used with high visibility in case of state that these are purchased on the basis of intangibles as
durables and credence services as they are associated with well as tangibles such as price (Ostrom and Iacobucci, 1995;
higher risk and consumer involvement, while in case of Moorthi, 2002; Brady et al., 2005). Therefore, corporate
FMCG and experience services, it is used with low visibility as brand is relatively less important for such purchases. Second,
they are associated with relatively lesser risk and consumer the companies want to capitalise the benefits of segmentation
involvement. Hence, brand managers give visibility through individual branding (Laforet and Saunders, 1999;
prominence to corporate brand type to the extent to which Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Vijayraghavan, 2003;
mitigating risk involved in consumer purchases is the primary Rajagopal and Sanchez, 2004).
purpose of branding. Further, single brand type strategy is not used for FMCG
Further, the results depict that the usage of house brand and experience services. Combinations of multiple brand
type is negligible in the three sectors. The findings are in types namely individual, corporate and family brand types are
contradiction with Laforet and Saunders (1994) who find that used in the FMCG sector. This finding is in line with Laforet
house brands tend to appear more than corporate brands in and Saunders (1994, 2005, 2007) who find that more than 50
the grocery sector in the UK. Further, as anticipated, house per cent products in the grocery industry in the UK carried
14
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
more than one brand type. Combination of individual and et al., 2006). A comparison of the companies from the West
corporate brand types is the commonly used branding strategy and from the East for their branding strategies is an avenue
for experience services. This finding is consistent with for future research. Third, as in today’s globalised world, a
Rahman and Areni (2009) who suggest that services can large number of companies have operations in multiple
benefit from sub-brands, but is in contradiction with a priori countries, it is also worthwhile to explore whether the
research which states that corporate brand is always the branding strategies of such companies are same globally, or
primary brand for services (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo there are distinctions by geography. Fourth, the kind of
Riley, 1999; Berry, 2000; McDonald et al., 2001; Burt and research and discussion conducted by companies to evaluate
Sparks, 2002). In today’s highly product and brand different branding strategy options while branding a product/
proliferated markets, it has become extremely difficult and service is unknown. Future research may be conducted to
expensive to develop new brands from scratch that have the shed light on the organisational decision making processes
potential to be successful. Hence, companies prefer to use two associated with choosing a particular branding strategy.
brand types together, one already established brand called
master brand (Corporate/Family Brand) and another new References
individual brand. Master brand adds credibility to the
offering, and individual brand adds value by describing the Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E.A. (2000), “The brand
offering and by modifying the associations of the master brand relationship spectrum”, California Management Review,
through creation of specific brand beliefs (Aaker and Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 8-23.
Joachimsthaler, 2000; Keller, 2008). The use of master Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), “Customer loyalty
brand also eases the acceptance of new product by the trade and complex services: the impact of corporate image on
(Laforet and Saunders, 1994; Petromilli et al., 2002). quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with
varying degrees of service expertise”, International Journal of
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
15
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), “Free competition and Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1999), “Managing brand
the optimal amount of fraud”, Journal of Law and portfolios: why leaders do what they do”, Journal of
Economics, Vol. 16, April, pp. 67-86. Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999), “Experts’ Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (2005), “Managing brand
views about defining services brands and the principles of portfolios: how strategies have changed”, Journal of
services branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 314-27.
No. 2, pp. 181-92. Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (2007), “How brand portfolios
Dowling, G.R. and Staelin, R. (1994), “A model of perceived have changed: a study of grocery suppliers brands from
risk and intended risk-handling activity”, Journal of 1994 to 2004”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 119-34. Nos 1-2, pp. 39-58.
East, R. (1997), Consumer Behaviour, Prentice Hall, Sydney. McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Kiel, G.C. (1999), Marketing:
Garbarino, E. and Strahilevitz, M. (2004), “Gender A Strategic Approach, Nelson Thomson Learning, South
differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the Melbourne.
effects of receiving a site recommendation”, Journal of McDonald, M., de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001),
Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 768-75. “Corporate marketing and service brands: moving beyond
Gray, E. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), “Corporate image – the fast moving consumer goods model”, European Journal
an integral part of strategy”, Sloan Management Review, of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 335-52.
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 73-8. Mitra, K., Reiss, M.C. and Capella, L.M. (1999),
Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Batra, R. (2004), “When corporate “An examination of perceived risk, information search
image affects product evaluations: the moderating role of and behavioural intentions in search, experience and
perceived risk”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, credence services”, The Journal of Services Marketing,
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
16
Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2013 · 6 –17
involvement level and time pressure”, British Food Journal, Vijayraghavan, K. (2003), “FMCG firms relearn marketing
Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 607-28. strategies”, Times, 4 April.
Souiden, N., Kassim, N.M. and Hong, H.J. (2006), “The Wei, S.T., Ou, L.C. and Luo, R.M. (2009), “Colour design
effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers’ for carton-packed fruit juice packages”, paper presented at
product evaluations - a cross cultural analysis”, European the Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 825-45. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16-19 July
Strebinger, A. (2004), “Strategic brand concept and brand 2008, available from Sheffield Hallam University Research
architecture strategy – a proposed model”, Advances in
Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/499/ (accessed
Consumer Research, Vol. 31, pp. 656-61.
4 June 2012).
Tse, D.K., Belk, R.W. and Zhou, N. (1989), “Becoming a
Zeithaml, V.A. (1981), “How consumer evaluation processes
consumer society: a longitudinal and cross-cultural content
analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the People’s differ between goods and services”, in Donnelly, J.H. and
Republic of China, and Taiwan”, Journal of Consumer George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, American
Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 457-72. Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 186-9.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), “Brand name strategies Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985),
in the service sector”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 “Problems and strategies in services marketing”, Journal of
No. 4, pp. 42-50. Marketing, Vol. 49, Spring, pp. 33-46.
Vaughn, R. (1980), “How advertising works: a planning Zikmund, W.G. and Scott, J.E. (1974), “A multivariate
model”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 20 No. 5, analysis of perceived risk, self-confidence and information
pp. 27-33. sources”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 406-16.
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)
Appendix
About the authors Management, Vikalpa (IIM, Ahmadabad) and Decision (IIM,
Calcutta). Bikram Jit Singh Mann is the corresponding author
Bikram Jit Singh Mann is an Associate Professor in the
and can be contacted at: bikrammann@hotmail.com
Department of Commerce and Business Management, Guru
Mandeep Kaur is a Research Scholar in the Department of
Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India. He has a
PhD in Brand Management and his areas of teaching and Commerce and Business Management, Guru Nanak Dev
research interest are brand management and strategic University, Amritsar, Punjab, India. She is pursuing her PhD
management. He has published research papers in national (as UGC Research Fellow) in Brand Management. She is also
and international journals of repute like International Business 2012-2013 Fulbright-Nehru Doctoral and Professional
Review (in press), International Journal of Commerce and Research Fellow.
17
This article has been cited by:
1. Michael John Valos, Fatemeh Haji Habibi, Riza Casidy, Carl Barrie Driesener, Vanya Louise Maplestone. 2016. Exploring the
integration of social media within integrated marketing communication frameworks. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 34:1,
19-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Michael J. Valos, Paul Turner, Helana Scheepers, Rosemary Stockdale. 2015. Integrating online communities within business-
to-business marketing communications: an exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-19. [CrossRef]
3. Fatemeh Habibi, Caroline Anne Hamilton, Michael John Valos, Michael Callaghan. 2015. E-marketing orientation and social
media implementation in B2B marketing. European Business Review 27:6, 638-655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Per Åsberg. 2015. Perceived brand portfolios: how individual views hamper efficiency. Journal of Product & Brand Management
24:6, 610-620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by VIT University At 02:56 19 March 2016 (PT)