George rossolatos seminar on branding, brand equity, brand semiotic models and research methods part...

George Rossolatos MSc, MBA, PhD//disruptiVesemiOtics// email: [email protected]://uni-kassel.academia.edu/georgerossolatos

Ref.ppt Date

What is brand equity? The CBBE perspective

• The differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer

response to the marketing of a brand (Keller 1998)

• Knowledge of a brand

• Establishment of a differential brand knowledge structure

• Strong, favorable, unique brand associations

• Consumer response is the outcome of a superior brand

knowledge structure in terms of competitively superior

associations


Ref.ppt Date

Brand knowledge structureBrand knowledge can be conceptualized in terms of a brand node in memorywith brand associations, varying in strength, connected to it (Keller 1998)

Brand knowledge structureBrand knowledge can be conceptualized in terms of a brand node in memorywith brand associations, varying in strength, connected to it (Keller 1998)Brand knowledge is fundamentally a function of

brand awareness and brand image

Brand awareness is a threshold perceptualdeterminant of brand value and refers toconsumers’ ability to identify the brand

Brand image is the sum of perceptions about abrand as reflected by the brand associations heldin consumer memory. Attributes, benefits andattitudes are key types of brand associations.


Ref.ppt Date

Brand knowledge structureBrand image attributes and dimensions are recognized by Keller as ‘sources’ ofbrand equity. If this is the case, then what are ad expressive elements thatconstitute a key source for the formation of brand associations?

Adexpressive

units

? Sources of brand equity oroutcomes of sources of ad

expressive units?

Advertising expressive elements as sources of brand associationsThe missing links in Keller’s brand knowledge structure

• In order to yield a more comprehensive account of the interrelationships amongstattributes, benefits and attitudes, both with regard to resulting associations, as well as theelements used for creating such associations, one needs an encompassing theory ofsignification and a way of accounting for transformations

• “Although Keller (1993) and others assert that brand associations in a consumer’s mindare what a brand means, they do not examine in detail how associations are formed”(Escalas and Bettman 2000: 246)

• The establishment of such a web of associations creates what Kapferer calls a ‘brandcontract’ between brand and consumers (which echoes the Greimasian concept ofcommunicative ‘contract’)


Ref.ppt Date


• “The definition of consumer based brand equity does not distinguish between the source

of brand associations and the manner in which they are formed” (Keller 1998: 51).

• However, it is precisely the modes whereby expressive elements as sources of brand equity are

transformed into brand associations that determine the level of potential equity erosion or the

degree of sustainability of brand equity.

• In essence, managing brand equity is indistinguishable from

managing the transformative grammar from expressive

elements to associations, with the aid of rhetorical semiotics.


• “The definition of consumer based brand equity does not distinguish between the source

of brand associations and the manner in which they are formed” (Keller 1998: 51).

• However, it is precisely the modes whereby expressive elements as sources of brand equity are

transformed into brand associations that determine the level of potential equity erosion or the

degree of sustainability of brand equity.

• In essence, managing brand equity is indistinguishable from

managing the transformative grammar from expressive

elements to associations, with the aid of rhetorical semiotics.

Insofar as “paradoxically, brand-building has to relyincreasingly on non-rational, implicit communication”(Branthwaite 2002), unless brand related associationshave been projected by relating associatively semes withmanifest discursive elements, it is highly unlikely that theactually shaped and largely pre-conscious associativestructures in consumers’ minds will be manageable, asthere will be no blueprint against which such pre-conscious associations may be compared.

Structuralist semiotics, which is concerned withstructuring the imaginary, in the light of the propoundedapproach that emphasizes brand textual configurationalongside pro-filmic elements and figurative relata (i.e.,rhetorical operations/figures and production techniques) isparticularly apt for providing pathways whereby this taskmay be accomplished.


Ref.ppt Date

Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid(Keller & Davey)

Resonance

Judgments Feelings

PerformanceImagery

Salience

Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid(Keller & Davey)

Resonance

Judgments Feelings

PerformanceImagery

SalienceThe level of awareness andrelevance of a brand to aconsumer

User/Usage related figurativeelements employed in brandcommunications

•Brand-related opinions andevaluations

The extent to which the use ofa product/service meetscustomers’ needs

•Emotional/Affectiveresponses to a brand

The extent to which aconsumer identifies with abrand


Ref.ppt Date

Brand knowledge structural components(brand associations as outcomes of the decoding process of ad texts)

• 3 major types of brand image components: attributes, benefits, attitudes

• Product-related attributes: Ingredients necessary for performing the product or servicefunction sought by consumers (e.g., wholegrain cereals)

• giving rise to primary brand associations

• Non-product related attributes: External aspects of the product or service that oftenrelate to its purchase or consumption in some way (e.g., easy to use)

• giving rise to secondary brand associations

• Benefits: Personal value and meaning that consumers attach to a product or service (e.g.,value-for-money)

• Brand related attitudes: Generic background expectations influencing the receptivity tobrand related cues (e.g., a brand’s heritage)

The ‘mechanics’ of the formation of brandassociations

How is brand knowledge stored in memory? “Do consumers linguistically rationalize allbrand-related information, that is, translate and store the information verbally? Or doconsumers store information in the original format, for instance, as pictures or smells?” (Kollet al. 2010)

• How stored brand knowledge is activated in the face of incoming stimuli or in the absence ofdirectly elicited stimuli?

• What kind of stimuli (cues) produce what kind of mental associations and behavioralresponses?

• Why the probability that certain cues will produce certain associations changes over time?(Janisweski & Osselaer)

• In the consumer behavior related literature mostly brand names and product-relatedattributes have been employed as input cues in connectionist studies BUT NOT ADEXPRESSIVE UNITS, NOT TO MENTION MODES OF CONNECTIVITY ANDTRANSFORMATION

• Research output from studies on brand associations has been used for predictive modelingpurposes


Ref.ppt Date

The ‘mechanics’ of the formation of brandassociations• Aaker’s and Keller’s research and discussion of brand associations are rooted in the cognitivepsychology theory of associative networks. “This model has been referred to as the humanassociative memory (HAM) model, the Hebbian model, the Bayesian model, the spreadingactivation model, and the connectionist model” (Praxmarer and Gierl).

• The greater the number of links that emanate from a node, the greater the centrality of the nodein consumers’ memory

• Patterns of co-occurrence

• “Associative networks are merely simplified representations of knowledge stored in theconsumers’ minds and cannot be assumed to depict actual neural connections” (Teichert andSchontag).

• They constitute a useful heuristic for iterative brand equity planning and ongoing management andnot an epistemological panacea.

• The majority of quantitative studies that measure consumer associations operate under theassumption that memory elicitation is a goal-oriented activity

• The main source of embodied knowledge is vision, since more than 60% of the incominginformation reaching the brain passes through the visual system (Zaltman & Zaltman,).

The ‘mechanics’ of the formation of brandassociations

•Two main perspectives about the formation of brand associations

• Direct associations (HAM/Human Associative Memory) models

• Adaptive learning or connectionist models


Ref.ppt Date

The ‘mechanics’ of the formation of brandassociations: Direct associations (HAM)

• When multiple predictive cues are connected to the same outcome, the totalactivation of the outcome is equal to the summed activation from the availablepredictive cues

Janiszewski & Osselaer 2000

• Degree of spreading depends on the distance from the stimulus nodes.

Henderson, Iacobucci, Calder 1998

The ‘mechanics’ of the formation of brandassociations: Direct associations (HAM)

• According to the classical spreading activation schema (Andersen) knowledge is storedin memory in the form of inter-connected nodes (nodes and links).

• Activation of a node in long-term memory depends on information that is processed inworking memory and the strength of the association between the node activated inworking memory and the target node (Janiszewski & Osselaer)

• What wires together, fires together (the Hebbian learning principle)• The more the same ad expressive elements appear to be directly correlated withparticular semantic content, the more strongly they should be associated in long-term memory

• But what happens when ad texts change constantly over time, and, moreover,when the semantic content that is correlated with distinctive ad expressive unitschanges as well across brands in a given product category?

THE TEXTUAL SEMIOTIC CHALLENGE TO COGNITIVISM


Ref.ppt Date

The ‘mechanics’ of the formation of brandassociations: Connectionist models

• Adaptive learning, PDP (parallel distributed processing) or connectionist models differfrom classical spreading activation in three primary ways:

• Associations are asymmetric, viz., the strength of a link from one node to anotherin one direction is not necessarily equal to the strength of the link in the reversedirection.• People use feedback to update the association strength between cue andoutcome.•The strength of certain associations is dependent on the frequency of co-occurrence between cues and outcomes (additivity rule), also dependent on the co-presence of other cues (Janiszewski & Osselaer)

• THE GOAL OF A ROBUST BRAND KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE: Attainment offirst mover perceptual advantages by blocking competitive brand names from beingassociated with key image drivers.

Levels of memory processing: Semantic/episodic(Koll et al.)• Another approach to consumer memory proposes a tripartite division of the mind into

• a semantic/episodic system• a declarative/procedural system• an explicit/implicit system

• The semantic memory system, in line with associative memory, contains mostly verbal,categorical, and conceptual knowledge consisting of abstract, context-free information andgeneral facts about a brand. Semantic memory develops via rational thinking, implying thatconsumers encode reality in abstract symbols, words, and numbers.

• THE PROVINCE OF BRAND IMAGE ATTRIBUTES

• The episodic memory system contains more detailed, context-related, event-specific, andpersonal experiences with the brand. Episodic knowledge explains bonds between brandsand consumers, providing insights into consumer self-identities, their motivationsand goals in a temporally structured and context-sensitive manner.


Ref.ppt Date

Levels of memory processing:Declarative/procedural, Explicit/implicit (Koll et al.)•The declarative/procedural and the explicit/implicit memory systems account for thefact that consumers process and retrieve both verbal and nonverbal brand knowledge ona conscious as well as on an unconscious level.

•The declarative/procedural dichotomy distinguishes between conscious andunconscious knowledge processing and retrieval, while the explicit/implicit dichotomyimplies different levels of consciousness.

•Declarative memory contains intentionally or consciously acquired, stored, andretrieved knowledge. Similarly, consumers draw on explicit memory to consciouslyexhibit certain behaviors.

• Procedural knowledge, on the other hand, consists of skills or abilities consumersacquire non-reflectively (typically via prior experience) and apply without consciouseffort. This is similar to implicit knowledge, which results from prior experiences with abrand and allows consumers to unconsciously perform certain behaviors.

Levels of memory processing (Koll et al.)


Ref.ppt Date

Brand equity models and research methods• Quantitative

• Brand Asset Valuator (Y&R)• Brand dynamics (Millward Brown)• Perceptual mapping techniques (e.g., correspondence analysis, PCA, MDS,associative networks)• Brand concept maps• Conjoint analysis•Structural equation modeling

• Qualitative• Qualitative exploration of brand image dimensions• Free associations, stories, collages

• Mixed methods•ZMET

Brand Asset Valuator(Y&R)

•The process of building brands is reflected through theprogression of four (five) primary measures:

• Differentiation• Relevance• Esteem• Knowledge• * Energy added to the model in 2005

•These measures (multi-attribute dimensions) are used toevaluate current brand performance and future potential.


Ref.ppt Date


•The process of building brands is reflected through theprogression of four (five) primary measures:

• Differentiation• Relevance• Esteem• Knowledge• * Energy added to the model in 2005

•These measures (multi-attribute dimensions) are used toevaluate current brand performance and future potential.


• Differentiation: How different a brand is from its competitors. “Aloss in differentiation is a strong sign that a brand is fading”(Aaker).

• Relevance: Differentiation alone does not suffice. A brand mustalso be relevant. For example, as Aaker contends, Jaguar isrecognized as highly differentiated, but low in relevance(predominantly due to price).

• Brand strength: A brand’s relevance and differentiation viewedin relationship represent brand strength, which is a strongindicator of future performance.


Ref.ppt Date


• Differentiation: How different a brand is from its competitors. “Aloss in differentiation is a strong sign that a brand is fading”(Aaker).

• Relevance: Differentiation alone does not suffice. A brand mustalso be relevant. For example, as Aaker contends, Jaguar isrecognized as highly differentiated, but low in relevance(predominantly due to price).

• Brand strength: A brand’s relevance and differentiation viewedin relationship represent brand strength, which is a strongindicator of future performance.


• Esteem: How much consumers like a brand and hold it in highregard; “largely based on perceived quality” (Aaker)

• Knowledge: Not simply awareness, but intimacy with a brand (Aaker)

• Brand stature: Brand Stature is discovered in the combination ofEsteem and Knowledge.


Ref.ppt Date

Energy: The 5th pillar in the modified BAV

BAV calculi and ‘Power Grid’

• Differentiation x Relevance= Brand strength• Esteem x Knowledge= Brand stature


Ref.ppt Date

BAV calculi and ‘Power Grid’

• Differentiation x Relevance= Brand strength• Esteem x Knowledge= Brand stature

The process of growth starts with Differentiation, then Relevance, while the brand isnot yet held in Esteem or is not widely known.

Enough Strength boosts the brand into the upper left quadrant. This quadrantrepresents the potential for a brand. Strength is still building and the challenge here isto translate this Strength into Stature for the brand. Brands can stay in the upper leftquadrant, establishing themselves as successful niche players.

Alternatively, from this position a brand can compete for brand leadership. The upperright area is populated by the brand leaders. The strongest brands are here, thosewith megabrand potential and, in many cases, the megabrands themselves.

The bottom right quadrant is the trouble spot for brands, and an indicator of erodingpotential. These brands have failed to maintain their Relevant Differentiation,their core Strength. If unattended long enough, their stature will begin to fall and thefranchise decline.

The Brand Dynamics Pyramid (Millward Brown)


Ref.ppt Date

The Brand Dynamics Pyramid (Millward Brown)Five equity building blocks form a Brand Pyramid:

• Presence: The extent to which a brand is TOM (measured through unaidedawareness).

• Relevance: The brand meets consumer needs at an acceptable price.• Performance: The functional aspects of a brand are at least in parity to the

competition.• Advantage: Attributes that measure the softer side of branding, such as saliency,

emotional appeal, personality and popularity.• Bonding: The more the consumer feels that the brand is the only one that offers

key advantages within a brand-repertoire, the more loyal he is likely to be.

• Consumers at each level of the Brand Pyramid can be targeted via advertising

and other marketing tools.

The Brand Dynamics Pyramid (Millward Brown)The second step, after collecting the relevant data for each pyramid stratum,consists in comparing between competitive brands’ pyramids. For example,Brands A and B have similar levels of presence, relevance and productacceptability, but Brand A has higher advantage and much higher bonding.


Ref.ppt Date


The third step consists in looking at the conversion ratios from each stratum tothe next on an intra-brand level and then by comparing conversion rates amongbrands in a category.


The third step consists in looking at the conversion ratios from each stratum tothe next on an intra-brand level and then by comparing conversion rates amongbrands in a category.

Even though the overall profiles of Bank A and Bank B look quitesimilar, Bank A enjoys higher levels of Bonding. Bank B concentratedits communication on overall bank visibility leaving itself with fewerBonded customers - current customers felt neglected by thecommunications. Is this important? Bank B has a much higher rate ofpast to present customers than Bank A, but it has been much lesssuccessful in keeping its customers.


Ref.ppt Date

The Brand Dynamics Pyramid (Millward Brown)Brand Dynamics may also be used for predictive purposes, by examining whatis the impact of shifts in salient metrics of the pyramid on overall brand strength.Simulations may also be run against market-based data, e.g., market-share.The below chart shows the effects of a 4% increase in Presence across thepyramid, as well as the overall change in consumer value (which is expected tobe reflected in MS).

Voltage 2.0 (Millward Brown)•A measure of future brand potential

•Calculated relative to the performance of other brands in the samecategory using three metrics

•Current brand use and brand salience•Emotional attachment•Perceived differentiation

•A brand with positive Voltage 2.0 is primed for growth. It is in a good position togain share from its own marketing actions and to resist the actions ofcompetitors.

• A brand with negative Voltage 2.0 can still grow, but it will have to work harderto do so, and it will be more vulnerable to the actions of other brands.


Ref.ppt Date

Predicting market share growth based on Voltage2.0 (Millward Brown)

Brands in the upper-rightquadrant tend to have highmarket shares and goodgrowth prospects. Brands thatdominate their productcategories, such as Coke,Nike, and McDonald’s wouldfall into this quadrant. Clearlythese brands shouldcontinue to maintain their highequity profiles.

The brands in the lower left-hand corner, which have bothlow presence and low Voltage2.0, face a relatively highfailure rate. Many of thesebrands are new and facestrong competition fromincumbent brands. The keyquestions facing marketersresponsible for these brandsare: How do I disrupt thestatus quo?

Brands in the upper-leftquadrant have high potentialbut tend to be more volatilethan the brands on the right-hand side of the map. Manydo gain share, but a fairnumber decline. The brandsin this region run the risk thatas they work to grow theirfootprint, they may moveaway from the brandingformula that made themsuccessful.

Perceptual mapping: CA, MDS, Associative networks

• Perceptual mapping: Techniques for representing consumers’ brand-relatedassociations / brand image attributes graphically in 2-dimensional space.

• Determining where a brand is positioned versus its competitors in consumers’minds.

• Gauging image territories of similarity and difference and hence sources ofperceptual differential advantage.

• Based on the centrality of certain image attributes, determine key imagedrivers for entire product categories.


Ref.ppt Date

Perceptual mapping: MDS• MDS enables brand mapping spatially, so that the relative positions in themapped space reflect the degree of perceived similarity between the objects(the closer in space, the more similar the brands).

• Unlike other PM methods (CA, PCA), in MDS exercises respondents arerequested to rate brands on overall similarity, not individual attributes.

Perceptual mapping: CA• Correspondence Analysis examines the relationships and co-variance levels betweencategories of nominal data in a contingency table (brands X image attributes).

• Identification of a category’s association with other categories by theirproximity on the perceptual map.

• Accounts for “inertia” or measurement of explained variation as eigenvalue.


Ref.ppt Date

Perceptual mapping: Associative networks

DEWARS

FAMOUS GROUSE

JWRL

CUTTY SARK

A BRAND FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME

FOR SOPHISTICATED STYLISH PEOPLE

FOR PEOPLE WHO LIKE HAVING GOOD TIME

A BRAND WHICH IS GROWING IN POPULARITY

A BRAND WITH REAL CHARACTER

A MASCULIN BRAND

A DYNAMIC BRAND

Research methods in eliciting and portrayingbrand associations: Brand-concept maps

• Roedder-John et al. (2006) propounded a brand-concept mapping approach formanaging brand associations with managerial orientation that did not require knowledgeof advanced statistical analysis, as a simpler alternative to Zaltman’s (1997) ZMETtechnique, and a more representative portrayal of interconnections among brandassociations than MDS.

• They accounted for overall brand associative strength by combining individual withconsensus maps, based on frequency tables and aggregate scores by following a 5-stepprocedure, which involved selecting brand associations, selecting first-order brandassociations, selecting core brand association links and non-core brand association linksand finally selecting the number of connecting lines among links in brand associationmaps.

• They presented their brand concept mapping method as an iterative process with long-term orientation for evaluating brand-related perceptions in the light of theimplementation of brand communications programs and competitive activities.


Ref.ppt Date


Roedder-John et al. 2006


Roedder-John et al. 2006

Number ofconnecting lines(single, double, triple)represent strength ofconnection

Solid line= coreassociationDashed line= non-core association


Ref.ppt Date

Why indirect measures are more pertinent forgauging brand strength?

Why indirect measures are more pertinent for gauging brandstrength?

Unclear product hierarchy in consumers’ minds (esp. in low-involvement categories) and hence low discrimination in consumerresponses to direct ranking questions.

Social constraints may affect responses (e.g., not wanting to comeacross as ‘cheapo hunters’).

Consumers cannot easily quantify what is important.

Direct ranking of brands non-feasible in instances of wide salientsets.

Gauging brand strength through conjoint analysis

Conjoint analysis is apt for measuring brand strength indirectlyby gauging at what price point consumers would switch tocheaper alternatives.

Respondents are presented with different combinations ofbrands/price-points.

Requested to state their preference for each combination.

Each combination is attributed a part worth/utility score (0-1).

Summing part worths per brand across brand/pricecombinations yields an indirect measure of brand strength,while considering the effect of price on consumer choice.


Ref.ppt Date

Measuring antecedents and outcomes of BE withSEM• A method for measuring the hypothesized causal interactions among the variables ofa structural model

• Antecedents = causal drivers for building brand equity (e.g., perceivedperformance and quality)• Outcomes = results of brands with high equity (e.g., enhanced purchase intent)

• A method for demonstrating causal relations among unobservable/latent variablesbased on observed variables

• Latent variable: Brand personality• Observed variables whereby a latent variable is measured (its instrumentation)=‘a brand for young people’, ‘an outgoing brand’

• “indicators of the underlying construct which they are presumed torepresent” (Byrnes)

• Mainly used for confirmatory purposes: Examination of regression weights fromobserved to latent variables and between latent variables

• 2 key sets of measurements• Examination of the model’s validity and reliability• Examination of the model’s goodness of fit

Sketchmap of the conceptual model by indicating pathsand their direction among the model’s constructs

• Previous literature and reasoned logic were employed to identify potentialrelationship paths between the various constructs, and whether these constructrelationships are expected to exhibit positive or negative influence (Schumann andLeingpibul)

recursive model(=1 way causal

relations)


Ref.ppt Date

SPSS Amos interface

SEM output (Amos) 1: Examining the model’svalidity and reliability

Schumann and Leingpibul


Ref.ppt Date

SEM output (Amos) 1: Examining the model’svalidity and reliability

Construct reliability (CR) = Cronbach’s a > 0.7 (how internally consistent are theconstructs of the model)

Construct validity = convergent validity, discriminant validity, nomological validity andface validity.

Convergent validity = the extent to which indicators of a specific construct ‘converge’ orshare a high proportion of variance in common.

1. Parameter weights= Factor loadings of observable variables on latent constructs(>0.5)

2. AVE (average variance extracted) > 0.5

Discriminant validity = the extent to which a construct is truly distinct from other constructs.

Face validity = the extent to which the content of the items is consistent with the construct definition, based solely on the researcher’sjudgment.

Nomological validity = is tested by examining whether or not the correlations between the constructs in the measurement theory makesense. The covariance matrix Phi (Ф) of construct correlations is useful in this assessment.


SEM output (Amos) 2: Examining the model’sgoodness of fit


Regressionweights OR factor

loadings


Ref.ppt Date

SEM output (Amos) 2: Examining the model’sgoodness of fit


CFI >.9 how adequately the hypothesized model fits the sample data (Byrne)

RMSEA <.10 how well the model would fit the population covariance matrix if it wereavailable, with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values (Byrne)

X2 Researchers have addressed the X2 limitations by developing goodness-of-fitindices that take a more pragmatic approach to the evaluation process. These criteria,commonly referred to as subjective, practical, or ad hoc indices of fit, are typicallyused as adjuncts to the X2 statistic (Byrne)

Regressionweights OR factor

loadings

Three types of meaning in SEM (Bagozzi & Yi 2012)

• Theoretical meaning, empirical meaning spurious meaning


Ref.ppt Date

Research methods in eliciting brand associations:Qualitative exploration of brand image dimensions

Grace and O’Cass 2002

Research methods in eliciting and portraying brand associations:Free associations/storytelling/collages (Koll et al.)


Ref.ppt Date

Research methods in eliciting and portraying brand associations:Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET)

• A set of qualitative methods for eliciting metaphorically brand related consumerassociations and quantitative methods for transforming insights into actionable input formarketing mix decisions and segmentation strategies.

• Favoring the term ‘mental model’ rather than ‘cognitive structure’, as the methodpurports to be all-encompassing, that is not being restricted to eliciting conscious‘knowledge’ (cognitive meaning), but also deeply laden feelings, attitudes, values(‘affective meaning’).

• Repertory grids, laddering, content analysis and visual dictionaries are integralcomponents of ZMET, as are visual (photographs) and other sensory materials thatconsumers provide.

• The elicited brand associations are aggregated into consensus maps, which representbrand image facets.

• Consensus maps portray diagrammatically the linkages among elicited constructs.

• The linkages, which are drawn by consumers, constitute consumers’ ownrepresentations of their brand knowledge structures which, in ZMET language, areequivalent to causal models.


Two theoretical assumptions underlying ZMET are particularly important:

Unconscious tacit content: Much of the content of consumers' mental structuresis unconscious or tacit (below the surface-level thinking of conscious awareness).Thus such meaning is difficult to access directly . Methods for eliciting suchknowledge and bringing it to the surface where it can be interpreted and mappedare needed. Zaltman (1997) notes that metaphors are an important tool foreliciting such hidden knowledge. ZMET uses metaphor as a research tool toelicit deep meaning.

Images in mental models. Much of the current thinking in cognitive science issympathetic to the view that thoughts are image-based and language is a toolhumans use to try and convey their mental images to others. If thoughts areindeed image based, then the content of cognitive structures necessarily areimages. Thus, ZMET asks respondents to select several pictures that expresstheir thoughts and feelings. (Christensen and Olson)


Ref.ppt Date


Step 1 Storytelling: Customer describes the content of each picture.

Step 2 Missed images: Customer describes the pictures he/she was unable to

obtain and explains their relevance.

Step 3 Sorting task: Customer sorts his/her pictures into meaningful piles.

Step 4 Construct elicitation: A modified version of the Kelly Repertory Grid

technique and the laddering technique are used to elicit basic constructs

and their relationships. Customers’ pictures serve as stimuli.

Step 5 Most representative picture: Customer indicates the picture that is most

representative.

Step 6 Opposite images: Customer describes pictures that represent the opposite

of the task, for example, what “is not Nike”.

Step 7 Sensory images: Descriptions are elicited of what does and does not

describe the taste, touch, smell, sound, color and emotion of the concept

being explored.

Step 8 The mental map: Customer creates a map or a causal model using the

constructs that have been elicited.

Step 9 The summary image: Customer, with assistance from a technician,

creates a summary image using digital imaging techniques.

Zaltman and Coulter 1994


Christensen and Olson 2002: Aggregate consensus map(mental model) for 15 highly involved mountain bikers

This aggregatemap representsthe main conceptsidentified byconsumers andthe linkagesbetween theconcepts asreflected in theirinterviews. As aconsensus map,it identifies thedominant (mostfrequentlymentioned)concepts (thoseconnected toanother conceptby at least 4 ofthe 15respondents).


Ref.ppt Date

Differences between analytical tools employed in ZMET and theconnectionist approach to the brand generative trajectory ofsignification proposed in this thesis

• Obviously, the proposed conceptual model and methodology are concerned first and foremost withprojecting an equity structure, prior to putting a trajectory to the test and hence it does not includeconsumer data (at least in its current form)

• Key and crucial difference: Incorporating an arsenal of rhetorical figures that are absent from ZMETwhich focuses on metaphor.

• The application of visual rhetorical figures in advertising research is still at an embryonic stage, not tomention verbo-visual figures. The brand generative trajectory constitutes a massive advancementcompared to the strictly focused on metaphor orientation of ZMET

• ZMET, as amply evidenced, suffers from sample size constraints (N=15 -20 respondents per project).The brand generative trajectory features s ample size of at least N=300 filmic segments

• This is the first time that a segment-by-segment analysis is suggested, and moreover linked with thesemantic content of ad texts.

•The brand generative trajectory considers conceptual issues of brand textual configuration that have notbeen addressed by Zaltman

• It also addresses issues of rhetorical literacy and figurative literacy that are not addressed by Zaltman.ZMET works on the untested assumption of a semantic isomorphism between pictures and metaphoricalverbal semantic content. Moreover, if associations may be elicited metaphorically, why not in the form ofany other rhetorical figure?

• It tackles the meaning of ‘unconscious’ more elaborately from a psychoanalytic POV than merelypositing it as ‘innate depth structure of the mind’, an innatist fallacy that plagued Jungian psychoanaklysis.It allies with Lacan in viewing the unconscious as language, rather than innate mental structure.

George rossolatos seminar on branding, brand equity, brand semiotic models and research methods part...

Business

Transcript of George rossolatos seminar on branding, brand equity, brand semiotic models and research methods part...