International Journal of Market Research

Brands - Dead or Alive?

Terry Hanby
Centre for International Manufacturing, University of Cambridge

The classical conception of brands

'A brand is a distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design)
intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to
differentiate those goods or services from those of competitors'. So runs the definition of a brand,
cast by a distinguished group of American marketers in 1960 (AMA 1960), that captured the
essential elements that defined brands in the Western industrialised world during the post-war
period of the 1950s and 1960s. At least three aspects of this definition suggest that it is very
much of its time.

First, it is written from the perspective of the brand owner, a fact that is evident from the use of the
central verb 'intended' (by whom?). Such a supply-side orientation would have been the most
obvious one in 1960. The war years had seen enormous improvements in technology which had
in turn led to a rapid increase in the efficiency of manufacturing industry. Although demand for
consumer goods also rose rapidly during this period (fuelled by a growth in consumer affluence
which increased, not just the total amount of free disposable income, but also the number of
consumers that had the means to buy premium goods) the age of the customer-as-king had not
yet arrived. While a gradual transition to demand-side economics was in progress it was still the
supply-side view that dominated. Corporate interest in the brand concept had, however, led to the
widespread introduction of the brand manager system into major companies (although it had first
been introduced in the 1930s but not really 'caught on' (Low & Fullerton 1994). Nor was the
marketing services industry any less interested in brands as evidenced by the emergence of
'planning' as a key function within the advertising world (Bullmore 1998).

A second indicator that this definition is of its time is its essentially reductionist orientation, that is
it treats the brand as an extended product (product plus name or symbol) that can be
decomposed into its elements without loss of meaning (Ambler & Styles 1994). The 1960s was
an era in which the 'white heat of technology' was still very much admired and most people still
regarded science as entirely benevolent. Sociology, anthropology and relativistic philosophical
ideas were still very much minority activities. The Kuhnian attack on positivistic science (Kuhn
1962) and postmodernism were still to come. The dominant intellectual paradigm of the 1950s
was still essentially positivistic (see, for example, Gardner & Levy 1955).

The conceptualisation of a brand as an extended product was perhaps most eloquently and
influentially explained by Levitt (1980) who argued that surrounding the tangible product were
extra layers of product extension that include name, pack, service, guarantees and quality
features that could form the basis of product differentiation for competitive advantage. This brand
conceptualisation, combined with the belief that brands as extended products can be studied
1 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43
 element by element rather than in any essentially holistic way, fitted perfectly into the positivistic
zeitgeist of the 1950s and 1960s. Even today the belief that a brand is an extended product is still
common (e.g. Doyle 1994) and some companies still seem to use the terms 'brand manager' and
'product manager' as if they were virtually interchangeable.

This reductionist conception of the brand has had a profound influence on the process of brand
management. In particular, it is the fundamental intellectual underpinning of the most influential
and commonly-encountered approach to market research in which each brand element (product,
name, pack, price, etc.) is initially studied in isolation. These elements are then gradually
combined in pairs, triples and so on leading up to a final test of the complete set of elements in a
'total offer test'. Such approaches assume that the brand is decomposable into its constituent
elements and that it is no more or less than the sum of its parts.

Thirdly, the focus on differentiation in the AAAA definition suggests a linkage with the
economist's notion of product differentiation as a basis for differential pricing. Such roots would
not be surprising given the prevalence of economics as a base discipline for many marketing
academics at the time of the AAAA definition. Further this heritage would explain the very rational
view of decision-making that is implicit in the AAAA definition, i.e. that by examining the
observable elements of products/brands they can be differentiated in ways that are meaningful in
the context of economic activity (expressed in most cases, in the form of preference and
subsequent purchase decisions). This economist's notion of rational man has also had a
significant influence in the market research world, most notably as the philosophical justification
for the belief that people know why they do things (e.g. buy brands) and that, if you ask them
questions about their behaviours, intentions and attitudes, they can give you comprehensive,
accurate and unambiguous answers.

This 'classical' view of the brand is, then, owner-orientated, reductionist and grounded in
economics with its perspective on man as a rational being. It is also passive. It regards the brand
as having no life of its own but rather as an inert entity to which 'things' can be done. No limits are
specified on this potential for manipulation. The language of marketing activity surrounding this
conception of the brand reflects this passive nature. Terms such as 'positioning', 'segmentation'
and 'image', for example, refer to an entity that has no mind or character of its own but rather one
that can be manoeuvered by external agencies. It is surely no accident that the majority of
textbooks that accept this definition prefer the passive voice when talking about brands (e.g.
Aaker 1991; Kotler 1993).

During those first 25 years after the Second World War marketing desperately wanted to be a
science. The marketing literature was full of articles trying to demonstrate that marketing had the
potential to meet the necessary criteria to qualify as a science (or alternatively claiming that it had
already done so). Notable for their influence were the contributions of Converse (1945), Alderson
& Cox (1948), Buzzell (1963) and Hunt (1976). Although they were not without their critics (e.g.
Bartels 1951; Hutchinson 1952; Vaile 1949), such dissenting voices were very much in the
minority. It is, perhaps, not surprising in this climate that the marketing profession so readily
embraced a definition of a brand that imbued it with the properties of an inert physical object, thus
opening up the possibility of studying it through the methods of the most indisputably scientific of
all activities, the natural sciences - a phenomenon described by one author as 'physics envy'
(Brown 1996).

Changing views

However, by the early 1980s the world was clearly changing. Positivism and objectivism were

2 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43

 under attack on many fronts. Relativism and, in particular, postmodernism with its focus on the
multiple realities of the experiential world, was emerging as a new intellectual 'paradigm'. In the
marketing world these ideas and other anti-positivisic ones began to be adopted often under the
leadership of the new generation of anthropologists, sociologists and dynamic psychologists that
had entered the marketing arena alongside the economists and experimental psychologists who
had previously dominated it.

The effect was rapid and dramatic. In the marketing world many books and articles appeared
using 'softer' social science concepts and espousing a relativistic view of marketing activities
(classic examples are Anderson 1983; Hirschman 1986; Peter & Olsen 1983). The same
upheaval occurred in the brand literature. In the 1970s Stephen King of JWT suggested that
brands were not just product adjuncts but complex cognitive entities created by consumers in
reaction to their total set of experiences with a product (King 1970; 1973).

Cooper (1979; 1980) described brands as 'living inside consumers' heads' and as entities that
'structure and represent the sort of lives people lead'. A new more holistic and organic language
began to appear in the brand literature using terms such as 'living entities', 'personality' and
'symbiosis' to describe brands and their actions. As Lannon & Cooper (1983) said:

What turns a product into a brand is that the physical product is combined with something else
symbols, images, feelings to produce an idea which is more than the sum of the parts. The two
product and symbolism live and grow with and on one another in a partnership of mutual
exchange.

This new view, unlike the earlier one embodied in the AMA (1960) definition, regarded brands as
holistic entities with many of the characteristics of living beings. A whole new language grew up
to support this view with brands being described as 'personalities' (Aaker 1997; Abrams 1981)
with which we could form relationships (De Chernatony & McDonald 1992; 1998; Fournier 1995;
1998). They could have an inner 'essence' (Arnold 1992; Hanby & Cooper 1990) and they could
grow and evolve over time (Goodyear 1993; 1996). Perhaps the most complete exposition of this
view belongs to Jean-Noel Kapferer (1992; 1997) who has developed the concept of brand
identity with its six integrated facets of physique, personality, relationship, culture, reflection and
self-image.

Clearly this change is not a trivial one. But just what is its true nature and what are its major
implications? In order to address these questions we need to digress briefly into a new subject
area - that of metaphor.

Changing conceptions of metaphor

A metaphor is language that belongs to one domain of discourse used in another. An example
will make this clear. If I say that a ship is 'ploughing through the waves' I am using the language
of agricultural activity in a nautical context. Such 'crossover' language is clearly common, but the
extent of its occurrence in our everyday language and the full implications of this were not widely
understood and accepted until the 1980s.

Most of us were taught at school that a metaphor is an embellishment of language frequently

used by literary folk to enhance the expressive content of their writings. Such a view stems from
classical times when Aristotle in his Poetics described the ability to use metaphor as a sign of
true poetic and rhetorical genius but also cautioned against its use in rational argument. In
common with his mentor, Plato, he argued that metaphorical language distorted the 'true'
argument and could mislead the unwary. For nearly 2,500 years this view has prevailed and led
3 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43
 to a deep-rooted belief in a distinction between 'literal' language (that describes the world as it
'really' is) and metaphorical language (that embellishes and, possibly, distorts the 'objective
reality' described in literal language). Over the centuries the voices that have challenged this
view (including such 'big' names in the world of philosophy as Vico, Rousseau, Nietzsche,
Cassirer and Langer) have been shouted down (or just ignored) and the distinction between the
'literal' and the 'metaphorical' has become fundamental to our beliefs about the way the world is.
Indeed, the positivistic school of scientific thinking embraced this schism wholeheartedly
because it reinforced its belief in an objective world 'out there' that scientists could describe
accurately and unambiguously in 'literal' language.

However, building on much earlier work by previous authors, notably Black (1962) and Hesse
(1963; 1974), Lakoff & Johnson (1980) demonstrated that everyday language is largely
composed of metaphors (even if some of these are 'dead' metaphors that have become so
embedded in the language that their metaphorical roots have been obscured). It is not the
purpose of this paper to go into the detailed description of their ideas (excellent reviews of key
ideas and research in the field of metaphor, including the work of Lackoff & Johnson, are to be
found in Gibbs 1994 and Ortony 1993). What is critical, though, is the observation that we do not
have access to any 'natural' language for describing abstract ideas and emotions. From their
analyses of everyday language Lackoff & Johnson demonstrated that we borrow language from
our perceptual and motor experiences to create metaphors for describing abstract and emotional
ideas. Further they conclude that this is the only way that such ideas can be expressed (oft-
quoted examples are life construed as a journey cf. 'I'm getting on really well' and the mind as a
machine cf. 'my mind just isn't working today'). Morgan (1986; 1996) has described metaphors as
devices for allowing us to create the 'ways of seeing' and 'ways of thinking' that determine our
understanding of the world.

This is why I like to describe metaphor as a primal, generative process that is fundamental to
the creation of human understanding and meaning in all aspects of life. We typically understand
one phenomenon through another. This is the basic crossing that creates meaning as we
engage, organize and seek to understand the world. (Morgan 1996, p. 228)

This notion that metaphor is necessary for us to construct abstract and emotional concepts is a
profound one for not only does it mean that every abstract idea (including that of a brand) can be
examined for meaning through metaphorical analysis, but it also suggests that it may be our
ability to create new ideas through the construction of metaphors that lies at the heart of our
intellectual superiority over the rest of nature.

Lackoff & Johnson's work led to an explosion of metaphorical analyses of just about everything -
including economic concepts, legal terms, psychological theories, philosophical schools of
thought and organisational theory. Several techniques for studying metaphorical structures have
also been developed including some that are applicable to qualitative consumer research
(Zaltman & Higie Coulter 1995; Zaltman 1996).

However, an examination of the key metaphors that are used to describe brands has not yet been
forthcoming.

Brand metaphors

From our earlier discussion of the changing conceptions of brands we can readily see that the
dominant 'root' metaphor used to describe brands has changed from brand as lifeless
manipulable artefact (product plus that is created by its owners/managers and that can be
positioned, segmented and used to create an image) to brand as living entity (with a personality
4 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43
 with which we can form a relationship and that can change and evolve over time). Such a radical
shift in outlook (which incidentally appears to be taking place in many disciplines) has far-
reaching consequences. The classical brand conception (manipulable artefact) adopts an
'outside-in' perspective, that is, we are invited to view the brand as an entity in physical space
that we observe from the outside. The most appropriate techniques of study for this point of view
are derived from the natural sciences (quantitative methods with large, statistically reliable
samples). The newer 'living entity' conception is an 'inside-out' perspective on brands and this
more subjective orientation suggests that it is the social sciences (especially anthropology,
sociology and dynamic psychology) that will supply the appropriate investigative methodologies
(case studies and other open-ended qualitative techniques). And so it is.

In fact we all know well that both views co-exist in today's marketing and consumer research
world. Whereas a few years ago most authors were firmly in one school of thought or the other,
nowadays even the academic texts on brands tend to mix these mechanistic and organic
metaphors (see, for example, Aaker 1996; Keller 1998; and Kotler's classic book Marketing
management from the 8th edition (1993) onwards in which he offers both the AMA definition of
brands and Kapferer's Brand Identity model on the same page, p. 444).

However most practitioners do appear to favour one metaphor or the other. Those who have a
distinct preference for the 'manipulable artefact' view of brands may well use qualitative methods
but they tend to regard these as providing merely 'exploratory' inputs into some larger, quantified
study which in their eyes has the status of the 'proper' research. Such an approach is a natural
consequence of the 'manipulable object' brand view because it suggests that a thing
conceptualised as a physical object (the brand) would be best studied utilising the methods of
the science of physical objects, physics.

Those practitioners that prefer the inside-out perspective, on the contrary, argue that only
qualitative methods allow sufficient depth and breadth to allow the complexities of consumer
thought and behaviour to be studied in any meaningful way. For them studying the inner world of
an entity requires the techniques and methodologies of the more phenomenologically orientated
disciplines. Numbers then become appropriate for answering 'How many?' and 'How much?'
questions, although even in these cases supporters of this brand view may argue that limitations
in respondent self-knowledge, failure of human memory and even plain dishonesty may result in
data that are at best ambiguous. However, once there is a need to ask 'How?' and 'Why?'
questions, then 'deeper', qualitative methods are mandated (Yin 1984).

Brand metaphors and organisational metaphors

While one conception of a brand may be in absolute terms more effective for brand management
purposes than another, observation and experience would seem to suggest otherwise.
Successful brand-owning and brand-managing companies seem to exist within both of the main
root metaphors - manipulable artefact and living entity. Intuitively, though, it does seem to be the
case that some companies are more comfortable with the 'manipulable artefact' conception of
brands while others favour the 'living entity' view. It is this observation that suggest an important
contingency - that certain types of company will perform better if they work within the appropriate
brand metaphor for their organisation. But what are the 'types' of company and how should we
define 'appropriate' in this context?

Organisational theorists, unlike brand marketers, were among the first to examine the metaphors
that underpinned thought in their field (for example, Bolman & Deal 1991; Morgan 1980; 1986;
Palmer & Dunford 1996). Organisations are abstract entities and, as such, metaphors derived

5 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43

 from the perceptual or motor domain are required to conceptualise them. Mechanistic and
organic metaphors have been recognised by organisational theorists as the main 'root' ones
used to discuss organisations (including, one assumes, brand-owning companies), not only by
organisational theorists themselves, but also by the members of the organisations.

Thus we see that the dominant brand metaphors are 'manipulable artefact' and 'living entity' and
that the dominant organisational metaphors are the 'machine' and the 'organism'. The similarity
between these two sets of metaphors is remarkable and opens up the possibility that there may
be some relationship between a particular metaphor that an organisation prefers to describe itself
and the particular brand metaphor that is most likely to lead to successful performance for that
company's brands. The obvious hypothesis is that 'machine' organisations will have greater
success utilising a mechanical (manipulable artifact) view of a brand, while organic organisations
will fare better with organic brand conceptualisations.

The implications of this contingency are not trivial.

First, companies need to be aware of their organisational metaphor in order to optimise their
approach to managing brands. This is a 'horses-for-courses' argument and it implies that
companies should become consciously aware of their dominant organisational metaphor in order
to ensure that this same metaphor is utilised for brand management purposes. This would also
suggest that the best people for managing a brand are those who are sympathetic to the
dominant organisational metaphor. The danger in this approach is, of course, that, if companies
become locked into a single metaphor, then they may become excessively rigid and inflexible
and, consequently, dangerously slow in reacting to new environmental circumstances. This may
be particularly damaging if this threat is in the form of an aggressive competitor which prefers to
embody itself in (and consequently operate in accordance with) a different and unfamiliar
organisational metaphor.

Secondly, it would seem likely that mechanistic companies would prefer working with other
mechanistic companies including service companies. Thus those market research companies
that are themselves conceptualised as mechanistic will work most easily with mechanistic
clients. A consonance of company metaphors will mean that the two companies probably share a
similar view of the world and will, therefore, be able to communicate with each other in a common
language. Conversely companies that do not share an organisational metaphor will tend to talk at
cross purposes, irritate each other and this will probably lead to a rapid breakdown in their
relationship. However, there is one possible exception to this rule. Companies that are working in
product categories in which the leading brands are embodied through metaphors that are
dissonant with their own organisational metaphor may decide to work with a service company
embodied in the dissonant metaphor. In effect they would then use this service company as an
interpreter of the unfamiliar metaphor. However, for this approach to work it is necessary for the
client company to allow the service company considerable freedom, otherwise familiar problems
of mutual non-communication will rapidly appear.

Thirdly, it is clearly important to avoid mixed metaphor situations. We have already mentioned
two of these employees with different preferred brand metaphors and organisations with different
organisational metaphors. However, one of the most common situations in which mixed
metaphors become problematic is when different departments in the same organisation need to
work together. The problem is that as a general rule different departments in organisations do not
share the same departmental metaphors. The finance and production functions frequently prefer
to see themselves as 'well-oiled machines', whereas marketing likes to embody itself through a
more organic conceptualisation. Such differences frequently lead to deep misunderstandings
6 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43
 and in such situations it is important for these differences to be recognised and accommodated.

Even more devastating can be the corporate change process. Many companies engaged in
corporate change programmes embark on these because of some desire to become more like a
successful competitor. However, if the competitor conceptualises itself through a different
organisational metaphor then the wholesale importation of their processes into an organisation
with a radically different mindset may prove disastrous. For example mechanical companies
cannot make the transition to the organic world without a major re-education programming that
would need to reach all parts of the organisation. Indeed, without the recruitment of new
personnel who were sympathetic to the organic metaphor approach to organisations, it is by no
means certain that such a programme would be successful. Similarly organically-embodied
companies may be severely damaged by programmes based on mechanical metaphors such as
corporate 're-engineering'. Yet, in spite of the perils of such devastating culture clashes, many
companies seem to be all too ready to introduce wholly inappropriate 'change management'
ideas and methodologies into their often quite robust organisations.

In conclusion

This paper has had three main purposes. It has reviewed the deep structures (root metaphors)
that underpin the two main conceptions of brands that have dominated theory and practice over
the last 50 years. It has related these to the broader management literature, especially
organisational theory, in order to demonstrate that brand management activities, including market
and consumer research, need to be considered in the total corporate context and not just the
marketing one. Finally some of the major implications of this view were discussed, in particular
the importance of 'metaphor consonance' not only within an organisation but also between client
and service companies. In this context the concept of 'mixed metaphor' organisations is
introduced and some of the consequences of this (usually disastrous) condition are considered.

There remains, of course, one big question - is one of the major brand/ organisational root
metaphors potentially more powerful commercially than the other? In the current state of
knowledge any answer to this question must be necessarily tentative. Nevertheless it is
nowadays widely argued that most brands do need to differentiate themselves on more than just
functional criteria (de Chernatony & McWilliam 1990; Park, Jaworski & MacInnis 1986) and that
consumer decision-making is not in any conventional sense a rational process (Allison & Uhl
1964; Simon & Newell 1971; Tversky & Kahneman 1974). With this being true the organic brand
perspective, with its inbuilt ability to encompass abstract and emotional brand characteristics,
would seem to be more appropriate and potentially more capable of offering a comprehensive
view of complex brands that usually operate in fiercely competitive markets that are both crowded
and turbulent. However, as we have seen, the adoption of such an orientation, even if it is
potentially the more powerful one, may well prove to be enormously difficult for mechanical
companies.

Overt consideration of brand metaphors is a relatively new area for market researchers. However,
we are now beginning to appreciate the fundamental significance of metaphors and the
metaphorisation process for understanding how we human beings conceptualise the world
around us, not least in commercial and organisational contexts. Given their fundamental
significance it surely cannot be long before the analysis of brand and organisational metaphors
becomes an essential part of every qualitative researcher's armoury.

References

7 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43

 Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press

Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of measuring brand personality. Journal of Marketing

Research, 34, August, 347-56.

Abrams, B. (1981). Admen say brand personality is as crucial as the product. Wall Street
Journal, 13 August, p 133.

Alderson, W. & Cox, R. (1948). Towards a theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 13,
October, 137-52.

Allison, R. I. & Uhl, K. P. (1964). Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception.
Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 3, 36-9.

AMA (1960). Marketing definitions: a glossary of marketing terms. Chicago: American

Marketing Association.

Ambler, T. & STYLES, C. (1994). Brand equity: towards the measure that matters.
Unpublished draft. London: London Business School.

Anderson, P. F. (1983). Marketing, scientific progress and scientific method. Journal of

Marketing, 47, Fall, 18-31.

Arnold, D. (1992). The handbook of brand management. London: Century Press,

Economist Books.

Bartels, R. (195 1). Can marketing be a science? Journal of Marketing, 16, January, 319-
28.

Black, M. (1962). Metaphor. In Models and metaphor, pp. 25-47. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice and

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, S. (1996). Art or science? Fifty years of marketing debate. Journal of Marketing
Management, 12, 243-67.

Bullmore, J. (1998). Planning - 30 years on: Bullmore on King. Campaign, 10 July, p. 25.

Buzzell, R. D. (1963). Is marketing a science? Harvard Business Review, 41, 1, 32-40 &
166-70.

Cooper, P. (1979). Symbiosis: consumer psychology of branding. ADMAP, November.

Cooper, P. (1980). Symbiosis in media: new perspectives in media psychology. ADMAP,

June, pp. 290-298.

Converse, P.D. (1945). The development of the science of marketing - an exploratory

survey. Journal of Marketing, 10, July, pp. 14-23.

de Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M. (1992). Creating powerful brands. Oxford: Butterworth-

8 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43
 Heinemann.

de Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M. (1998). Creating powerful brands. 2nd edition. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.

de Chernatony, L. & McWilliam, G. (1990). Appreciating brands as assets through using a

two-dimensional model. International Journal of Advertising, 9, 2, 111-19.

Doyle, P. (1994). Marketing management and strategy. London: Prentice Hall.

Fournier, S.M. (1995). Understanding consumer-brand relationships. Working Paper 96-

018, October. Harvard Business School.

Fournier, S.M. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 4, 343-73.

Gardner, B. B. & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review,
March/April, pp 33-39.

Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodyear, M. (1993). Reviewing the concept of brands and branding. Proceedings of the
1MRSIESOMAR Branding Seminar, March.

Goodyear, M. (1996). Divided by a common language. Journal of the Market Research

Society, 38, 2, April, 105-22.

Hanby, T. & Cooper, P. (1990). The essence of international brands. Proceedings of the
ESOMAR Conference 'America, Japan and EC9' Venice, June. HESSE, M. (1963). Models
and analogies in science. London: Sheed & Ward.

1. Hesse, M. (1974). The structure of scientific inference. London: Macmillan.

Hirschman, E. C. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method

and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, August, 237-49.

Hunt, S.D. (1976). The nature and scope of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40, July, 17-
28.

Hutchinson, K.D. (1952). Marketing as a science: an appraisal. Journal of Marketing, 16,

January, pp. 286-93.

Kapferer, J.-N. (1992). Strategic brand management. New York: The Free Press.

Kapferer, J.-N. (1997). Strategic brand management. 2nd Edition. London: Kogan Page.

Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

King, S. (1970). What is a brand? London: J. Walter Thompson.

King, S. (1973). Developing new brands. London: Pitman.

Kotler, P. (1993). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control.

8th Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
9 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43
 Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Lackoff, G. & Jhonson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London and Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Lannon, J. & Cooper, P. (1983). Humanistic advertising: a holistic cultural perspective.

International Journal of Advertising, 2, 195-213.

Levine, T. (1980). Marketing success through differentiation - of anything. Harvard

Business Review, Jan-Feb, pp. 83-91.

Low, G. S. & Fullerton, R.A. (1994). Brands, brand management and the brand manager
system: a critical-historical evaluation. Journal of Marketing , XXXI, May, 173-90.

Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle-solving in organizational theory.

Administrative Science Quarterly , 25, pp. 605-622.

2. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London: Sage.

3. Morgan, G. (1996). An afterword: is there anything more to be said about metaphor? In:
Metaphor and organizations. Grant, David & Oswick, Cliff (Eds.). London: Sage.
4. Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Palmer, I. & Dunford, R. (1996). Conflicting uses of metaphors: reconceptualizing their use
in the field of organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 21, 3, 691-717.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B. J. & MacInnes, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept image
management. Journal of Marketing, 50, October, 621-35.

Peter, J.P. & Olsen, J.C. (1983). Is science marketing? Journal of Marketing, 47, Fall, 111-
25.

Simon, H. A. & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: the state of the theory in 1970.
American Psychologist, 26, 145-59.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.
Science, 185, 1124-131.

Vaile, R. S. (1949). Towards a theory of marketing - a comment. Journal of Marketing, 14,

April, 520-22.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: design and methods. Applied Social Research
Methods Series, Volume 5. London: Sage.

Zaltman, G. (1996). Metaphorically speaking. Marketing Research, 8, 2, Summer, pp 13-20.

Zaltman, G. & Higie Coulter, R. (1995). Seeing the voice of the consumer: metaphor-based
advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, pp 35-51.

10 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43

 © Copyright Warc 2017
Warc Ltd.
85 Newman Street, London, United Kingdom, W1T 3EX
Tel: +44 (0)20 7467 8100, Fax: +(0)20 7467 8101

All rights reserved including database rights. This electronic file is for the personal use of
authorised users based at the subscribing
company’s office location. It may not be reproduced, posted on intranets, extranets or the internet,
e-mailed, archived or shared
electronically either within the purchaser’s organisation or externally without express written
permission from Warc.

11 of 11 29 Sep 2017 15:18:43