Measuring the brand category through semantic differentiation
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810887572 |
| Published date | 18 July 2008 |
| Pages | 223-234 |
| Date | 18 July 2008 |
| Author | Marcus Abbott,John P. Shackleton,Ray Holland |
| Subject Matter | Marketing |
Measuring the brand category through
semantic differentiation
Marcus Abbott
Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
John P. Shackleton
Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand, and
Ray Holland
Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the cognitive processing mechanisms of concepts and categories by examining the methodologies behind how
branded-product concepts behave in the second of two co-incident alternative constructs – as a member of a product category, and in some cases, as a
category by itself. General proposals for such mechanisms present language as a facilitator in the process. Therefore, linguistic concept assessment
models are proposed to confirm the “brand as category” hypothesis evident in an example brand.
Design/methodology/approach – The study extended conventional semantic differentiation (SD) methodologies; sets of bi-polar measures of
concept properties describing the concept “semantic space”, to the brand category. Throughiteration, the SD tool is refined and the effects of weighted
scales understood.
Findings – The results provide evidence that some brands do act as categories, with clearly identifiable exemplar positions within the brand-category
“semantic space”.
Practical implications – This paper offers interesting alternatives to established brand and product development activities concerned with the
provision of product features and consumer benefits. Specifically,for many emotive, non-utilitarian products, brand attributes highly influence purchase
decision, and therefore brand accuracy and differentiation, measured in the product’s properties, are key – characteristics that can be most saliently
depicted in the “brand as category” alternative.
Originality/value – This paper applies SD to the brand category for the first time. It provides a new methodology with advantages for brand and
product managers concerned with the development of products that are not only “good” but also “right” for the brand.
Keywords Brands, Brand management, Semantics, Product differentiation, Cognition
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
For decades, philosophers have debated concepts and
categories – the basic, yet often complex structure of the
cognitive interpretation of our thoughts, environment and
products (Margolis and Lawrence, 1999). Most conclude the
concept entity is a taxonomic, biological or goal-derived
category of exemplars (Barsalou, 1983) that can be learnt and
understood, by humans, and possibly other things endowed
with the capacity for sensing and cognitive processing. A
concept, therefore, could be “a person, place, thing, feeling,
state of affairs, sense of foreboding, fantasy, hallucination,
hope or idea” (Eco, 1976, p. 67). Equally, it can be a product
and a brand (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001). On the one
hand, however, concept processing mechanisms are the
interest of cognitive science, while on the other, concept
content structures are the domain of semiotics. Therefore,
Rosch (1999), Lakoff (1987) and Fodor (1998) posit the
mechanism as a categorisation system of determinant and
dominant levels of concept entity inclusion, segmented by a
taxonomy of examples of varying typicality, stimulated by
deconstructable defining concept properties or attributes
(Smith et al., 1988). Saussure (in Chandler, 2002), Levi-
Strauss (1963) and Eco (1976, 1 985), however, place
syntagmatic, inclus ive, contextual relation ships, between
concept “signifiers” and “signifieds” in the vertical hierarchy
(e.g. a and b and c relations, that ultimately form a concept
“narrative”) and paradigmatic, substitutional examples in the
horizontal (e.g. x or y or z similar alternatives) (see Figure 1).
It is widely agreed that through linguistic facilitation, concept
interpretation, reality and thought exists (e.g. Chandler,
2002).
As a brand is a also concept, contemporary research has
explored brand structure, interpretation and characteristics
within the framework of both cognitive science (Aaker, 1991;
de Chernatony and McDonald, 2003; Czellar, 2003; Keller,
1993; Lindstrom, 2005) and semiotic theory (Alexander,
1996; Karjalainen, 2005; MacFarquhar, 1994; Valentine and
Evans, 1993), in order that it can be “leveraged” within the
consumer mind-set for competitive advantage. However,
where “brand” sits within the model is interpretable. Most
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
17/4 (2008) 223–234
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610420810887572]
223
To continue reading
Request your trial