George rossolatos seminar on branding, brand equity, brand semiotic models and research methods part 4

George Rossolatos MSc, MBA, PhD
//disruptiVesemiOtics// email: georgerossolatos123@gmail.com
http://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 structure
Brand knowledge can be conceptualized in terms of a brand node in memory
with brand associations, varying in strength, connected to it (Keller 1998)
Brand knowledge can be conceptualized in terms of a brand node in memory
with 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 perceptual
determinant of brand value and refers to
consumers’ ability to identify the brand
Brand image is the sum of perceptions about a
brand as reflected by the brand associations held
in consumer memory. Attributes, benefits and
attitudes are key types of brand associations.

Ref.ppt Date
Brand image attributes and dimensions are recognized by Keller as ‘sources’ of
brand equity. If this is the case, then what are ad expressive elements that
constitute a key source for the formation of brand associations?
Ad
expressive
units
? Sources of brand equity or
outcomes of sources of ad
expressive units?
Advertising expressive elements as sources of brand associations
The missing links in Keller’s brand knowledge structure
• In order to yield a more comprehensive account of the interrelationships amongst
attributes, benefits and attitudes, both with regard to resulting associations, as well as the
elements used for creating such associations, one needs an encompassing theory of
signification and a way of accounting for transformations
• “Although Keller (1993) and others assert that brand associations in a consumer’s mind
are 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 ‘brand
contract’ between brand and consumers (which echoes the Greimasian concept of
communicative ‘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 rely
increasingly on non-rational, implicit communication”
(Branthwaite 2002), unless brand related associations
have been projected by relating associatively semes with
manifest discursive elements, it is highly unlikely that the
actually shaped and largely pre-conscious associative
structures in consumers’ minds will be manageable, as
there will be no blueprint against which such pre-
conscious associations may be compared.
Structuralist semiotics, which is concerned with
structuring the imaginary, in the light of the propounded
approach that emphasizes brand textual configuration
alongside pro-filmic elements and figurative relata (i.e.,
rhetorical operations/figures and production techniques) is
particularly apt for providing pathways whereby this task
may 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 and
relevance of a brand to a
consumer
User/Usage related figurative
elements employed in brand
communications
•Brand-related opinions and
evaluations
The extent to which the use of
a product/service meets
customers’ needs
•Emotional/Affective
responses to a brand
The extent to which a
consumer identifies with a
brand

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 service
function 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 often
relate 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 to
brand related cues (e.g., a brand’s heritage)
The ‘mechanics’ of the formation of brand
associations
How is brand knowledge stored in memory? “Do consumers linguistically rationalize all
brand-related information, that is, translate and store the information verbally? Or do
consumers store information in the original format, for instance, as pictures or smells?” (Koll
et al. 2010)
• How stored brand knowledge is activated in the face of incoming stimuli or in the absence of
directly elicited stimuli?
• What kind of stimuli (cues) produce what kind of mental associations and behavioral
responses?
• 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-related
attributes have been employed as input cues in connectionist studies BUT NOT AD
EXPRESSIVE UNITS, NOT TO MENTION MODES OF CONNECTIVITY AND
TRANSFORMATION
• Research output from studies on brand associations has been used for predictive modeling
purposes

Ref.ppt Date
associations
• Aaker’s and Keller’s research and discussion of brand associations are rooted in the cognitive
psychology theory of associative networks. “This model has been referred to as the human
associative memory (HAM) model, the Hebbian model, the Bayesian model, the spreading
activation 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 node
in consumers’ memory
• Patterns of co-occurrence
• “Associative networks are merely simplified representations of knowledge stored in the
consumers’ minds and cannot be assumed to depict actual neural connections” (Teichert and
Schontag).
• They constitute a useful heuristic for iterative brand equity planning and ongoing management and
not an epistemological panacea.
• The majority of quantitative studies that measure consumer associations operate under the
assumption that memory elicitation is a goal-oriented activity
• The main source of embodied knowledge is vision, since more than 60% of the incoming
information reaching the brain passes through the visual system (Zaltman & Zaltman,).
associations
•Two main perspectives about the formation of brand associations
• Direct associations (HAM/Human Associative Memory) models
• Adaptive learning or connectionist models

Ref.ppt Date
associations: Direct associations (HAM)
• When multiple predictive cues are connected to the same outcome, the total
activation of the outcome is equal to the summed activation from the available
predictive cues
Janiszewski & Osselaer 2000
• Degree of spreading depends on the distance from the stimulus nodes.
Henderson, Iacobucci, Calder 1998
associations: Direct associations (HAM)
• According to the classical spreading activation schema (Andersen) knowledge is stored
in 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 in
working memory and the strength of the association between the node activated in
working 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 with
particular 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 units
changes as well across brands in a given product category?
THE TEXTUAL SEMIOTIC CHALLENGE TO COGNITIVISM

Ref.ppt Date
associations: Connectionist models
• Adaptive learning, PDP (parallel distributed processing) or connectionist models differ
from classical spreading activation in three primary ways:
• Associations are asymmetric, viz., the strength of a link from one node to another
in one direction is not necessarily equal to the strength of the link in the reverse
direction.
• People use feedback to update the association strength between cue and
outcome.
•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 of
first mover perceptual advantages by blocking competitive brand names from being
associated 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 and
general facts about a brand. Semantic memory develops via rational thinking, implying that
consumers 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, and
personal experiences with the brand. Episodic knowledge explains bonds between brands
and consumers, providing insights into consumer self-identities, their motivations
and 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 the
fact that consumers process and retrieve both verbal and nonverbal brand knowledge on
a conscious as well as on an unconscious level.
•The declarative/procedural dichotomy distinguishes between conscious and
unconscious knowledge processing and retrieval, while the explicit/implicit dichotomy
implies different levels of consciousness.
•Declarative memory contains intentionally or consciously acquired, stored, and
retrieved knowledge. Similarly, consumers draw on explicit memory to consciously
exhibit certain behaviors.
• Procedural knowledge, on the other hand, consists of skills or abilities consumers
acquire non-reflectively (typically via prior experience) and apply without conscious
effort. This is similar to implicit knowledge, which results from prior experiences with a
brand 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 the
progression of four (five) primary measures:
• Differentiation
• Relevance
• Esteem
• Knowledge
• * Energy added to the model in 2005
•These measures (multi-attribute dimensions) are used to
evaluate current brand performance and future potential.

Ref.ppt Date
•The process of building brands is reflected through the
progression of four (five) primary measures:
• Differentiation
• Relevance
• Esteem
• Knowledge
• * Energy added to the model in 2005
•These measures (multi-attribute dimensions) are used to
evaluate current brand performance and future potential.
• Differentiation: How different a brand is from its competitors. “A
loss in differentiation is a strong sign that a brand is fading”
(Aaker).
• Relevance: Differentiation alone does not suffice. A brand must
also be relevant. For example, as Aaker contends, Jaguar is
recognized as highly differentiated, but low in relevance
(predominantly due to price).
• Brand strength: A brand’s relevance and differentiation viewed
in relationship represent brand strength, which is a strong
indicator of future performance.

Ref.ppt Date
• Differentiation: How different a brand is from its competitors. “A
loss in differentiation is a strong sign that a brand is fading”
(Aaker).
• Relevance: Differentiation alone does not suffice. A brand must
also be relevant. For example, as Aaker contends, Jaguar is
recognized as highly differentiated, but low in relevance
(predominantly due to price).
• Brand strength: A brand’s relevance and differentiation viewed
in relationship represent brand strength, which is a strong
indicator of future performance.
• Esteem: How much consumers like a brand and hold it in high
regard; “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 of
Esteem 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 is
not yet held in Esteem or is not widely known.
Enough Strength boosts the brand into the upper left quadrant. This quadrant
represents the potential for a brand. Strength is still building and the challenge here is
to translate this Strength into Stature for the brand. Brands can stay in the upper left
quadrant, establishing themselves as successful niche players.
Alternatively, from this position a brand can compete for brand leadership. The upper
right area is populated by the brand leaders. The strongest brands are here, those
with megabrand potential and, in many cases, the megabrands themselves.
The bottom right quadrant is the trouble spot for brands, and an indicator of eroding
potential. These brands have failed to maintain their Relevant Differentiation,
their core Strength. If unattended long enough, their stature will begin to fall and the
franchise decline.
The Brand Dynamics Pyramid (Millward Brown)

Ref.ppt Date
Five equity building blocks form a Brand Pyramid:
• Presence: The extent to which a brand is TOM (measured through unaided
awareness).
• 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 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 product
acceptability, 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 to
the next on an intra-brand level and then by comparing conversion rates among
brands in a category.
The third step consists in looking at the conversion ratios from each stratum to
the next on an intra-brand level and then by comparing conversion rates among
brands in a category.
Even though the overall profiles of Bank A and Bank B look quite
similar, Bank A enjoys higher levels of Bonding. Bank B concentrated
its communication on overall bank visibility leaving itself with fewer
Bonded customers - current customers felt neglected by the
communications. Is this important? Bank B has a much higher rate of
past to present customers than Bank A, but it has been much less
successful in keeping its customers.

Ref.ppt Date
Brand Dynamics may also be used for predictive purposes, by examining what
is 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 the
pyramid, as well as the overall change in consumer value (which is expected to
be reflected in MS).
Voltage 2.0 (Millward Brown)
•A measure of future brand potential
•Calculated relative to the performance of other brands in the same
category 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 to
gain share from its own marketing actions and to resist the actions of
competitors.
• A brand with negative Voltage 2.0 can still grow, but it will have to work harder
to do so, and it will be more vulnerable to the actions of other brands.

Ref.ppt Date
Predicting market share growth based on Voltage
2.0 (Millward Brown)
Brands in the upper-right
quadrant tend to have high
market shares and good
growth prospects. Brands that
dominate their product
categories, such as Coke,
Nike, and McDonald’s would
fall into this quadrant. Clearly
these brands should
continue to maintain their high
equity profiles.
The brands in the lower left-
hand corner, which have both
low presence and low Voltage
2.0, face a relatively high
failure rate. Many of these
brands are new and face
strong competition from
incumbent brands. The key
questions facing marketers
responsible for these brands
are: How do I disrupt the
status quo?
Brands in the upper-left
quadrant have high potential
but tend to be more volatile
than the brands on the right-
hand side of the map. Many
do gain share, but a fair
number decline. The brands
in this region run the risk that
as they work to grow their
footprint, they may move
away from the branding
formula that made them
successful.
Perceptual mapping: CA, MDS, Associative networks
• Perceptual mapping: Techniques for representing consumers’ brand-related
associations / 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 of
perceptual differential advantage.
• Based on the centrality of certain image attributes, determine key image
drivers for entire product categories.

Ref.ppt Date
Perceptual mapping: MDS
• MDS enables brand mapping spatially, so that the relative positions in the
mapped 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 are
requested to rate brands on overall similarity, not individual attributes.
Perceptual mapping: CA
• Correspondence Analysis examines the relationships and co-variance levels between
categories of nominal data in a contingency table (brands X image attributes).
• Identification of a category’s association with other categories by their
proximity 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 portraying
brand associations: Brand-concept maps
• Roedder-John et al. (2006) propounded a brand-concept mapping approach for
managing brand associations with managerial orientation that did not require knowledge
of advanced statistical analysis, as a simpler alternative to Zaltman’s (1997) ZMET
technique, and a more representative portrayal of interconnections among brand
associations than MDS.
• They accounted for overall brand associative strength by combining individual with
consensus maps, based on frequency tables and aggregate scores by following a 5-step
procedure, which involved selecting brand associations, selecting first-order brand
associations, selecting core brand association links and non-core brand association links
and finally selecting the number of connecting lines among links in brand association
maps.
• They presented their brand concept mapping method as an iterative process with long-
term orientation for evaluating brand-related perceptions in the light of the
implementation of brand communications programs and competitive activities.

Ref.ppt Date
Roedder-John et al. 2006
Roedder-John et al. 2006
Number of
connecting lines
(single, double, triple)
represent strength of
connection
Solid line= core
association
Dashed line= non-
core association

Ref.ppt Date
Why indirect measures are more pertinent for
gauging brand strength?
 Why indirect measures are more pertinent for gauging brand
strength?
 Unclear product hierarchy in consumers’ minds (esp. in low-
involvement categories) and hence low discrimination in consumer
responses to direct ranking questions.
 Social constraints may affect responses (e.g., not wanting to come
across as ‘cheapo hunters’).
 Consumers cannot easily quantify what is important.
 Direct ranking of brands non-feasible in instances of wide salient
sets.
Gauging brand strength through conjoint analysis
 Conjoint analysis is apt for measuring brand strength indirectly
by gauging at what price point consumers would switch to
cheaper alternatives.
 Respondents are presented with different combinations of
brands/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/price
combinations 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 with
SEM
• A method for measuring the hypothesized causal interactions among the variables of
a structural model
• Antecedents = causal drivers for building brand equity (e.g., perceived
performance and quality)
• Outcomes = results of brands with high equity (e.g., enhanced purchase intent)
• A method for demonstrating causal relations among unobservable/latent variables
based 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 to
represent” (Byrnes)
• Mainly used for confirmatory purposes: Examination of regression weights from
observed 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 paths
and their direction among the model’s constructs
• Previous literature and reasoned logic were employed to identify potential
relationship paths between the various constructs, and whether these construct
relationships are expected to exhibit positive or negative influence (Schumann and
Leingpibul)
recursive model
(=1 way causal
relations)

Ref.ppt Date
SPSS Amos interface
SEM output (Amos) 1: Examining the model’s
validity and reliability
Schumann and Leingpibul

Ref.ppt Date
validity and reliability
Construct reliability (CR) = Cronbach’s a > 0.7 (how internally consistent are the
constructs of the model)
Construct validity = convergent validity, discriminant validity, nomological validity and
face validity.
Convergent validity = the extent to which indicators of a specific construct ‘converge’ or
share 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’s
judgment.
Nomological validity = is tested by examining whether or not the correlations between the constructs in the measurement theory make
sense. The covariance matrix Phi (Ф) of construct correlations is useful in this assessment.
goodness of fit
Regression
weights OR factor
loadings

Ref.ppt Date
goodness 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 were
available, with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values (Byrne)
X2 Researchers have addressed the X2 limitations by developing goodness-of-fit
indices 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 typically
used as adjuncts to the X2 statistic (Byrne)
Regression
weights 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
Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET)
• A set of qualitative methods for eliciting metaphorically brand related consumer
associations and quantitative methods for transforming insights into actionable input for
marketing mix decisions and segmentation strategies.
• Favoring the term ‘mental model’ rather than ‘cognitive structure’, as the method
purports 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 integral
components of ZMET, as are visual (photographs) and other sensory materials that
consumers provide.
• The elicited brand associations are aggregated into consensus maps, which represent
brand image facets.
• Consensus maps portray diagrammatically the linkages among elicited constructs.
• The linkages, which are drawn by consumers, constitute consumers’ own
representations of their brand knowledge structures which, in ZMET language, are
equivalent to causal models.
Two theoretical assumptions underlying ZMET are particularly important:
Unconscious tacit content: Much of the content of consumers' mental structures
is unconscious or tacit (below the surface-level thinking of conscious awareness).
Thus such meaning is difficult to access directly . Methods for eliciting such
knowledge and bringing it to the surface where it can be interpreted and mapped
are needed. Zaltman (1997) notes that metaphors are an important tool for
eliciting such hidden knowledge. ZMET uses metaphor as a research tool to
elicit deep meaning.
Images in mental models. Much of the current thinking in cognitive science is
sympathetic to the view that thoughts are image-based and language is a tool
humans use to try and convey their mental images to others. If thoughts are
indeed image based, then the content of cognitive structures necessarily are
images. Thus, ZMET asks respondents to select several pictures that express
their 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 aggregate
map represents
the main concepts
identified by
consumers and
the linkages
between the
concepts as
reflected in their
interviews. As a
consensus map,
it identifies the
dominant (most
frequently
mentioned)
concepts (those
connected to
another concept
by at least 4 of
the 15
respondents).

Ref.ppt Date
Differences between analytical tools employed in ZMET and the
connectionist approach to the brand generative trajectory of
signification proposed in this thesis
• Obviously, the proposed conceptual model and methodology are concerned first and foremost with
projecting an equity structure, prior to putting a trajectory to the test and hence it does not include
consumer data (at least in its current form)
• Key and crucial difference: Incorporating an arsenal of rhetorical figures that are absent from ZMET
which focuses on metaphor.
• The application of visual rhetorical figures in advertising research is still at an embryonic stage, not to
mention verbo-visual figures. The brand generative trajectory constitutes a massive advancement
compared 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 the
semantic content of ad texts.
•The brand generative trajectory considers conceptual issues of brand textual configuration that have not
been 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 metaphorical
verbal semantic content. Moreover, if associations may be elicited metaphorically, why not in the form of
any other rhetorical figure?
• It tackles the meaning of ‘unconscious’ more elaborately from a psychoanalytic POV than merely
positing 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 4

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (11)

Ähnlich wie George rossolatos seminar on branding, brand equity, brand semiotic models and research methods part 4

Ähnlich wie George rossolatos seminar on branding, brand equity, brand semiotic models and research methods part 4 (20)

Mehr von //disruptiVesemiOtics//

Mehr von //disruptiVesemiOtics// (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

George rossolatos seminar on branding, brand equity, brand semiotic models and research methods part 4