Although ethics are frequently debated within the social marketing literature, there has been very little empirical study of deliberate ethical transgressions in promoting a good…
Abstract
Purpose
Although ethics are frequently debated within the social marketing literature, there has been very little empirical study of deliberate ethical transgressions in promoting a good cause. The current study therefore aims to contribute by examining public reaction to the Fakegate scandal involving a climate scientist’s use of ethically questionable tactics in the “selling” of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) cause.
Design/methodology/approach
Content analysis catalogues the Fakegate justifications and criticisms used by eight UK and US print media editorials and 1,010 associated reader comments.
Findings
Among the argument classification categories, the most common Fakegate justifications rely on a utilitarian “greater good” ethics perspective, while the most frequent criticisms rely on a normative “violation of rules” ethics perspective. AGW believers represent nearly all the scandal justifiers, while AGW skeptics and a substantial minority of AGW believers represent the critics.
Research limitations/implications
Content material is limited to only the Fakegate case and people with enough interest to contribute a relevant comment, although the expressed viewpoints may be more widely representative because they are generally consistent with findings from the AGW public opinion polls.
Originality/value
This study provides an understanding of the ethical dilemma that social marketers face when assigned a “difficult-to-sell” good cause. The findings of the widespread public skepticism toward the AGW cause suggest that social marketers should resist the temptation of using ethically questionable tactics in such difficult cases. Unfortunately, honest and effective AGW “selling” may be impossible until current technology and policy tradeoffs are reduced.
Details
Keywords
This paper aims to uncover the influence of copyright holder/digital media policies on digital piracy behavior using the brand hegemony rejection (BHR) theory.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to uncover the influence of copyright holder/digital media policies on digital piracy behavior using the brand hegemony rejection (BHR) theory.
Design/methodology/approach
Content analysis of in-depth personal interview data from active digital pirates is analyzed using BHR theory.
Findings
BHR is found useful in understanding pirating motivations, which vary greatly across time and across digital mediums. Piracy is often motivated by profit enhancing policies of big media copyright holders, which are deemed unfair and not customer-oriented, but such motivations are greatly reduced when copyright holders offer attractive legal means to obtain digital content. Pirates generally do not feel sympathy for large media companies, but some pirates feel guilt that their actions may hurt digital content creators.
Research limitations/implications
The relatively small sample of pirates is primarily from Norway and hence may not be representative of other media markets.
Practical implications
A large portion of digital piracy can potentially be eliminated if copyright holders are customer focused and offer desired content with a format and price that are deemed fair. The technical skills of pirates are high, and they can resort to piracy whenever they feel rights holders are not customer-oriented.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first application of BHR theory to the digital piracy arena, and it is found to provide useful insights in explaining the rise and fall of piracy. This application of the BHR theory also suggests it might be usefully applied to the study of other ethically questionable consumer activities.
Details
Keywords
This paper aims to empirically examine the brand impact of intra‐brand platform sharing.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to empirically examine the brand impact of intra‐brand platform sharing.
Design/methodology/approach
The study uses two real platform‐sharing examples from the automobile and consumer electronics industries in an experimental setting.
Findings
The study finds that intra‐brand platform sharing caused no damage to brand equity in either setting.
Research limitations/implications
The study uses a student sample, although all product classes and brands tested are popular with this demographic which is a key target market for the tested industries. The study also tests intra‐brand platform sharing where the price differences are 20 percent between higher and lower level platform applications, and the findings may not hold for larger price gaps.
Practical implications
Platform sharing has been shown to damage brand equity in inter‐brand applications, but the current findings suggest that intra‐brand platform sharing is safe for the brand, and allows managers to also benefit from the cost savings in product design, manufacturing and servicing that have made the technique popular.
Originality/value
The paper builds on earlier platform‐sharing research and shows where the technique can be safely practised from the standpoint of protecting brand equity.
Details
Keywords
Erik L. Olson and Hans Mathias Thjømøe
The purpose of this paper is to compare the relative performance of TV sponsorships with the industry standard 30‐second TV spot advertising on achieving common communication…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to compare the relative performance of TV sponsorships with the industry standard 30‐second TV spot advertising on achieving common communication goals.
Design/methodology/approach
The two media are tested with an experiment using realistic stimuli and target market representative samples and employing six brands as both TV sponsors and TV advertisers.
Findings
Ten seconds of TV sponsoring works almost equally as well as 30‐second spots across all measures and brands. While the outright performance differs by type of brand (i.e. high fit versus lower fit, known versus unknown), the relative performance between media does not vary.
Research limitations/implications
The stimuli only gave subjects a brief exposure to each medium. The six stimuli brands, four effect measures, and the Norwegian sample may also not be representative for all types of TV sponsoring/advertising contexts.
Practical implications
Marketing managers can use the results to better allocate their communication spending between TV spot advertising and TV sponsorships, by determining which medium offers better value in achieving communication goals.
Originality/value
To the authors' knowledge, the comparison is the most realistic and controlled experiment in this area, with high levels of internal and external validity.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically the brand impact of consumer knowledge regarding a common supplier and shared product specifications between manufacturer and…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically the brand impact of consumer knowledge regarding a common supplier and shared product specifications between manufacturer and private label brands.
Design/methodology/approach
The study uses three fast‐moving consumer goods in an experimental setting.
Findings
The study finds that knowledge about common sourcing and shared specification decreases perceptual gaps between private labels and manufacturer brands and improves attitudes towards the retailer.
Research limitations/implications
The study uses a student sample, although all product categories and brands tested are popular with this demographic, and they are a key target market for the tested industries.
Practical implications
Manufacturer brands that supply private labels need to make sure that this information does not reach consumers and/or ensure their own brand version remains superior to the private label. Retailers that use well‐known manufacturer brands as suppliers of their high‐quality private labels might wish to share this information with customers as a means of improving attitudes towards the private label and retailer brands.
Originality/value
This paper builds on earlier platform sharing research and shows the dangers and opportunities of sharing product specification across brands with differing reputations and prices.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive model of high‐level sponsorship effects that works well in both sports and cultural sponsorship contexts.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive model of high‐level sponsorship effects that works well in both sports and cultural sponsorship contexts.
Design/methodology/approach
The sponsorship model is tested using survey data from target market representative samples in two professional sports contexts and two cultural contexts.
Findings
The model works almost equally well in both contexts. Furthermore, a more parsimonious mediated effects model provides virtually the same results as the full model. Improving attitude towards the sponsorship and object equity are found to be the most important factors for improving sponsor equity. The model also confirms earlier research on the importance of sponsor sincerity and sponsor‐object fit in determining sponsorship effects.
Research limitations/implications
The explained variance of the sincerity and object equity constructs was not as high as for other constructs in the model.
Practical implications
Sponsorship managers should pre‐test potential objects and sponsorship communications to make sure that constructs in the model such as fit, sincerity, sponsorship attitudes, and object equity are maximised to provide optimal sponsor equity.
Originality/value
The model combines constructs from various literatures into a comprehensive model of high‐level sponsorship effects. Furthermore, while most previous sponsorship research has used convenience samples and/or fictional and/or single sponsorship contexts, the comprehensive model tested here is shown to have high external validity by its consistently good performance in predicting sponsorship effects using four real sponsorships and representative samples.
Details
Keywords
The paper seeks to examine empirically the potential dilution and enhancement of brands that share product platforms with other brands.
Abstract
Purpose
The paper seeks to examine empirically the potential dilution and enhancement of brands that share product platforms with other brands.
Design/methodology/approach
Study 1 uses two real platform‐sharing examples from the automobile and consumer electronics industries in an experimental setting. Study 2 uses conjoint analysis in the same two industries to study the impact of platform‐sharing on preference and willingness to pay for a unique brand.
Findings
Study 1 finds that sharing a platform with an upscale brand is preferable to sharing with a downscale brand, although results are mixed on whether a unique‐to‐brand platform is preferred to sharing with an upscale brand. Study 2 finds that unique‐to‐brand platforms are preferred to any type of platform sharing, and calculates that this preference is worth about 6‐10 per cent of the product's retail price.
Research limitations/implications
Both studies use student samples, although all product classes and brands tested are popular with this demographic, which is a key target market for the tested industries.
Practical implications
Platform sharing is an increasingly popular product development strategy that offers great cost savings in product design, manufacturing and servicing. The findings suggest that managers also need to carefully consider the potential cost to a brand's equity when calculating the financial implications of platform sharing.
Originality/value
This paper brings together two areas that are usually not studied together, i.e. product development and brand equity management, and finds that choices made in the former can have important implications for the latter.
Details
Keywords
Erik L. Olson and Hans Mathias Thjømøe
This paper seeks to use branding literature to understand the rise and fall of GM's brands.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper seeks to use branding literature to understand the rise and fall of GM's brands.
Design/methodology/approach
The approach takes the form of presenting a case analysis using secondary sources covering GM's brands and products, managerial leadership, and market and financial performance throughout its 100‐year history.
Findings
During much of its first 50 years, GM was led by engineers who pioneered professional brand management, and through intelligent allocation of resources created one of the world's strongest portfolio of brands. Government anti‐trust hearings shifted GM to a cost‐cutting orientation during its second 50 years that had a negative impact on the GM brands and brought the current financial problems.
Research limitations/implications
This is a case study of only one firm, but parallels are drawn with other firms that have had similar brand issues.
Practical implications
Firms with multiple brands need top management leadership to ensure that each brand has a unique mission with minimal overlap and adequate resources for product development, innovation, and communications to achieve its mission. If the mission or resources disappear, non‐core brands need to be terminated. Governments that wish to support well managed firms with strong brands need to be careful in using anti‐trust actions, and should not force firms to make products that are not desired by customers.
Originality/value
The paper takes a novel approach to evaluating the current state of General Motors by examining the factors that led to chronic mismanagement of its brands, which in turn has reduced brand equity, market share, and profits, and that have magnified GM's problems with labor and legacy costs, productivity, and product mix.
Details
Keywords
Erik L. Olson and Hans Mathias Thjømøe
In this article, brand evaluations based on mere exposure to a brand name are compared to evaluations built on varying levels of cognitively processed brand information in a…
Abstract
In this article, brand evaluations based on mere exposure to a brand name are compared to evaluations built on varying levels of cognitively processed brand information in a setting where all subjects have low involvement. Results indicate that a small but meaningfully sized group of subjects fully processed the information on brands they were exposed to, and rated those brands significantly higher than other brands where they had only seen the brand name alone. This finding was strongest for a fictional new brand, but also present for a well‐established brand. By contrast, the larger portion of low involvement subjects who did not fully process brand information, also did not rate brands significantly higher than their ratings for brands in which they saw no accompanying information. Implications for sponsors and advertisers are discussed.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to narrate the history of General Motors' (GM's) success in its first 50 years, and describe the causes of its decline after government anti‐trust…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to narrate the history of General Motors' (GM's) success in its first 50 years, and describe the causes of its decline after government anti‐trust hearings.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper provides an historical analysis of GM through secondary sources.
Findings
GM was forced to abandon the very management principles it had developed and pioneered because of government legislation, leading to brand‐killing initiatives.
Research limitations/implications
This case study is of one firm only, but draws parallels with other potential firms.
Practical implications
This paper should serve as a warning to all industrial and commercial giants that threaten a monopoly, including IT firms like IBM and Microsoft.
Social implications
This paper addresses the negative effects of government regulation in a profit‐making environment, and will affect investors and consumers.
Originality/value
The paper clearly describes sound management principles in relation to brand management, and traces the history of a car company that is currently facing financial difficulties.