Unul din cele mai populare şi importante subiecte din domeniul marketingului apărut în ultimii ani a fost

conceptul de „brand equity”, tradus prin valoarea unei mărci şi valoarea necorporală pe care brand-ul îl

aduce la organizațiilor.

One of the most popular and potentially important marketing topics to arise in recent

years has been the concept of brand equity and the important intangible value that

brands bring to organizations. Although marketers may approach the concept

differently, there is some agreement that brand equity should be defined in terms of

marketing effects uniquely attributable to a brand. That is, brand equity relates to the

fact that different outcomes result in the marketing of a product or service because of

its brand, as compared to if that same product or service was not identified by that

brand.

There is also basic agreement in the following: these differences arise from the ‘added

value’ endowed to a product as a result of past investments in the marketing for the brand;

there are many different ways that this value can be created for a brand; brand equity

provides a common denominator for interpreting marketing strategies and assessing the

value of a brand; and there are many different ways as to how the value of a brand can be

manifested or exploited to benefit the firm.

The value of a brand to an organization can be seen by recognizing some of the

marketplace benefits that are created from having a strong brand. One review of academic

research documented a wide range of possible benefits (Hoeffler and Keller 2003):

. improved perceptions of product performance;

. greater customer loyalty;

. less vulnerability to competitive marketing actions and marketing crises;

. larger margins;

. more elastic customer response to price decreases and inelastic customer response

to price increases;

. greater trade or intermediary cooperation and support;

. increased marketing communication effectiveness;

. additional licensing and brand extension opportunities (Keller, 2009)

Marketers invest in branding because brand image and reputation enhance differentiation and can

positively influence buying behavior, as consumers choose among competing offers [21,22]. A product

offer consists of three levels [23]. The basic product consists of the tangible features, the augmented

product adds other features and services, and the potential product emphasizes the intangible features and

benefits to customers. The potential level captures the idea of the real and untapped potential of branding

[24]. Branding is powerful because it is associated with benefits to consumers, not just to marketers.

Consumers perceive brands to have functional, emotional, and self-expressive benefits [1]. Aaker [25]

also identified three key aspects of branding important to marketers: general name awareness, or how

well known the brand is; the general reputation of the brand; and purchase loyalty, measured as the

number of prior purchases of the brand.

Branding focuses on the image of the company to its customers.

Beyond brand naming, industrial brand value has been described as a function of the expected price, the

expected benefits of the basic product, the expected quality of the augmenting services, and the brand

intangibles [36]. Hutton [37] defined brand equity as buyers’ willingness to: pay a price premium for a

favored brand over a generic or unknown brand; recommend the brand to peers; and give special

consideration to another product with the same company brand name. Woodside and Vyas ([38], p. 189)

found managers to be willing to pay a 4 – 6% price premium to suppliers ‘‘whose product and service

performance is likely to be superior to other vendors.’’ A survey [39] of US electrical contractors

regarding circuit breakers revealed the significant presence of brand equity in the sector. The authors

concluded that brand loyalty is synonymous with firm loyalty in this product category, yet also found that

loyalty to distributors is as important as loyalty to manufacturers.

Branding is not important to all organizational buyers, or in all situations. In response to general

hypothetical questions [37], buyers indicated that they were most likely to choose well-known brands of

office equipment and supplies when: product failure would create serious problems for the buyer’s

organization or the buyer personally; the product requires greater service or support; the product is

complex; and under time and/or resource constraints.

Branding can benefit the business customer by increasing purchase confidence. Purchasing a well-known

brand can reinforce prior experience and relationships. Branding can increase customer satisfaction.

Buying a familiar brand may involve additional comfort and a ‘‘feel good’’ factor. Professional buyers

take pride in their work, and feel good about making the right choices.

Branding in consumer markets has long been shown to increase a company’s financial performance and

long run competitive position. This success has captured the attention of B2B marketers, who wish to tap

the potential of their company and their products and brands [54]. However, these efforts require an

understanding of what B2B branding is. This exploratory research has provided several insights. Perhaps

most importantly, the findings suggest that branding plays a more important role in B2B decision making

than has generally been recognized. For most B2B marketers, the company brand will remain the focus of

the branding strategy. Yet, the company brand of a diversified corporation is multidimensional and

dynamic. Understanding how customers perceive the company brand will be key to future management

decisions. Branding is not equally important to all companies, all customers, or in all purchase situations.

The analysis identified three clusters of customers. These customers differed in their perception of the

importance of branding in the purchase decision. Marketers can benefit by analyzing the branding

implications for each customer cluster regarding brand naming, the physical product, pricing, distribution,

advertising and promotion, and personal selling. A branding strategy focusing on customers in the

lowinterest cluster might communicate the potential importance of the purchase decision. Product

catalogues and web sites can be made attractive and appealing in an attempt to increase buyer interest in

the product and in the purchase decision. Mini case studies or testimonials from customers who in the

past did not take the purchase seriously could be shared. Additional resources may not be necessary for

further development of the physical product. Instead, it may be worthwhile to dedicate resources to

improving the ease of ordering. A coordination of telephone, fax, online ordering systems, and personal

selling can enhance ease of ordering.

In contrast to consumer markets, in B2B markets, the responsibility for implementing segmentation

recommendations generally falls on the sales representative, not the advertising executive [55]. Efforts

sometimes fall flat simply because they fail to reflect the salesperson’s role in implementing the

supplier’s marketing strategies, managing customer relationships [56], and exemplifying the brand. Trust

and commitment are key issues in buyer – seller relationships [57]. Differences may exist between a

customer’s trust and perception of a salesperson and of the company [58]. Changes in channel

management due to e-commerce and other technological innovations further emphasize the importance of

the evolving nature of trust and commitment in business relationships.

The model of B2B branding highlights the importance of the buyer’s perspective. To a buyer faced with

an unfamiliar or newly important purchase, the company brand can signal or symbolize expected brand

performance. Buyers often first turn to the leading brand, but there is more to a successful brand than

market share. If a leading brand does not not correspond to a buyer’s priorities, it does not provide good

value. Intangible factors do matter, even in rational and systematic decision making. Yet, purchasing

managers are likely to continue to look for more objective measures of the most subjective or intangible

aspects of the brand. Purchasing and technical managers may be at odds over their choice of supplier. To

tap the potential of B2B brands, business marketers must understand and effectively communicate the

value of their brands. Marketers should help buyers to realize and quantify the added value offered by a

brand. (Mudambi, 2002)

According to Gordon, Calantone, and di Benedetto (1993), business-to-business product and service

providers stand to gain sustainable competitive advantages through the development and strategic use of

brand equity, particularly when competing in today’s global economy. The competitive advantage of

firms that have brands with high equity include the following: a price premium can be attained; increased

demand by customers; brands can be extended easily; communications will be more readily accepted;

there will be better trade leverage; larger margins could be obtained; and the company will be less

vulnerable to competitive marketing actions (Aaker, 1996; Hague & Jackson, 1994;

Tangible aspects are quantifiable by measures such as the number of defects, the product life, the lead

time, the number of late deliveries, the technical support, the financial services, and the supplier financial

stability. Intangible aspects include factors such as perceived quality, incomplete or conflicting

information about the product, ease of ordering, general reliability, willingness of the company to respond

in an emergency, service quality, degree of rapport between customers and service providers,

understanding between service providers and customers, company reputation, country of origin,

pleasantness, and trustworthiness of company personnel.

This study shows that in B2B marketing, Industrial marketers have something to gain by investing into

building a likeable, strong, and positive brand image among all stakeholders. It will allow the company to

reap (albeit to a lesser degree) the same benefits that consumer marketers enjoy. Quality is the main

brand-equity-generating variable. Two lessons derive from this finding. The one is that a quality claim

may be effective only if there is substance to the claim. Industrial marketers have to make sure their

efforts to build a positive brand image are not torn down by poor quality. The second lesson is that to

create a quality product is not enough. Industrial marketers have to translate quality into perceived

quality. Industrial customers deliberately make it difficult for suppliers to determine who is actually

making the buying decision. Therefore, industrial marketers must create a positive image to all

stakeholders that come into contact with the company. To achieve this, the supplier company must look

beyond marketing communication and develop a total corporate communication program to build up the

corporate brand.

This study shows that in B2B marketing, Industrial marketers have something to gain by investing into

building a likeable, strong, and positive brand image among all stakeholders. It will allow the company to

reap (albeit to a lesser degree) the same benefits that consumer marketers enjoy. Quality is the main

brand-equity-generating variable. Two lessons derive from this finding. The one is that a quality claim

may be effective only if there is substance to the claim. Industrial marketers have to make sure their

efforts to build a positive brand image are not torn down by poor quality. The second lesson is that to

create a quality product is not enough. Industrial marketers have to translate quality into perceived

quality. Industrial customers deliberately make it difficult for suppliers to determine who is actually

making the buying decision. Therefore, industrial marketers must create a positive image to all

stakeholders that come into contact with the company. To achieve this, the supplier company must look

beyond marketing communication and develop a total corporate communication program to build up the

corporate brand. (Bendixena, 2004)

The high brand equity of some names in this sector reinforces the relevance of

branding beyond business-to-consumer marketing. For instance, 19 of the 100 most

valuable worldwide brands in the annual Interbrand survey can be categorised as

business-to-business (Interbrand and BusinessWeek, 2007), including IBM ($ 57 billion),

Intel ($ 31 billion), Cisco ($ 19 billion), SAP ($ 11 billion) and Caterpillar ($ 5 billion).

Additional evidence is provided by a key finding of a survey of top managers in

Germany for PriceWaterhouseCoopers: that the brand equity of business-to-business

companies is around 18 per cent of total corporate value (PriceWaterhouseCoopers and

Sattler, 2001). Among the reasons for this development are: an increase in the

homogeneity of product quality (for instance, as a result of product imitation by

Chinese companies); a decrease in personal customer relationships as a consequence of

digital communication; an increase in the complexity of products and services; and the

pressure of rising prices.

Given that the practical relevance of the brand concept to the business-to-business

sector is increasing, academic attention needs to be focused on the special features of

the practice of brand management as compared with the business-to-consumer sector.

It is helpful to distinguish between fundamental and situational differences. The

former exist with respect to the product, the customer and the market. Products and

services are highly heterogeneous, ranging in practice from a simple metal fastener to a

complex power plant, and often characterized by customisation and the delivery of

innovative solutions. There is seldom a strong connection between a brand and a single

offering. The customer side of the business-to-business transaction is in most cases

characterised by a low number of international customers, a more formal decision

process, and collective buying decisions by members of a buying centre. Key attributes

of the business-to-business marketplace are high transparency, personal contact, and

interaction between the suppliers and their customers. A consequence is the dominance

of personal communication instruments in business-to-business brand management.

As well as departure points for further research arising directly from the limitations

of this study, some general suggestions can be made. The model under consideration

examines brand orientation as an internal prerequisite for a strong brand in the

business-to-business context, but “brand” is not an internal concept. The results of

branding derive from accumulated brand awareness and personal brand images stored

in customers’ minds. “Brand identity” may belong to the company, but “brand image”

does not. Further research should analyse the correlation between internal brand

orientation and external brand equity. Such a study would benefit greatly from a

combination of in-company and market surveys. New research could also address itself

to different tools and instruments available for the fostering of brand orientation and

its effective implementation, in business-to-business companies. (Baumgarth, 2010)

The B2B brand

A brand serves the same purpose in B2B markets as it does in B2C; the myth that

industrial purchasers are thoroughly influenced by rationale assessments and not

emotions, and that the important issues were hard‐facts as functionality, price and

quality rather than soft‐facts like reputation or a renowned brand, is false (Kotler and

Pfoertsch, 2006, p. 2). A good reputation is of utmost importance for a company

(McKee, 2010, p. 9). Kotler and Pfoertsch provide the following definition;

“They facilitate the identification of products, services and business

as well as differentiate them from competition. They are an effective

and compelling means to communicate the benefits and value a

product or service can provide. They are a guarantee of quality,

origin, and performance, thereby increasing the perceived value to

the customer and reducing the risk and complexity involved in the

buying decision.”

Source: Kotler and Pfoertsch (2006, p. 3)

A brand is more than a logo and product packaging; tangible communication is used

to support the brand, but it is not the brand. The brand is a intangible short‐cut of

attributes existing in the minds of customers, derived from the totality of their

perception of the brand (Kotler and Pfoertsch, 2006, p. 5). Between B2B and B2C

branding there are several fundamental differences as industrial and consumer

markets differ significantly. Kotler and Pfoertsch (2006, pp. 20‐6) highlights these

differences;

The complexity of industrial products; Purchasing often requires qualified

experts in stark contrast to B2C.

Derived demand; Industrial demand is far more inelastic than consumer

demand, but also more volatile than consumer demand.

Internationality; The ongoing globalisation enables B2B companies to sell to

the whole world. B2B products in general requires less adaption to local

markets, but national differences in culture and value can have implications

for how products or services are perceived.

Organisational buying; Fewer customers than B2C, larger volumes per

customer and closer, long‐lasting relationships with the clients, combined

with a complex purchasing process.

Buying situation; Different buying situations, whether it is a straight re‐buy,

modified re‐buy or new task, and has implications for the complexity of the

decision to be made.

One of the most important properties of a brand is the capability to connection with

the emotions of buyers; a strong brand can remove uncertainty and build trust, thus

the internal branding should also emphasis not only on tangible values but also

intangible values surrounding the brand. As industrial products often have multiple

customer touch points which influences the brand perception, it is important that the

entire organisation is aware and conscious upon what the customers are expecting

and what image the company is trying to build, in order to deliver upon the brand

values on every customer touch point (Webster Jr. and Keller, 2004, Boatwright et al.,

2009). (Haakon, 2010)

In business-to-business (B2B), things are different –

branding is not meant to be relevant. Many managers are

convinced that it is a phenomenon confined only to consumer

products and markets. Their justification often relies on the

fact that they are in a commodity business or specialty market

and that customers naturally know a great deal about their

products as well as their competitors’ products. To them,

brand loyalty is a non-rational behavior that applies to

breakfast cereals and favorite jeans – it doesn’t apply in the

more “rational” world of B2B products. Products such as

electric motors, crystal components, industrial lubricants, or

high-tech components are chosen through an objective

decision-making process that only accounts for the so-called

hard facts like features/functionality, benefits, price, service,

and quality, etc. (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000, p. 22;

Pandey, 2007). Soft-facts like the reputation of the business,

whether it is well known, is not of interest. Is this true? Does

anybody really believe that people can turn themselves into

unemotional and utterly rational machines when at work? We

don’t think so.

What is branding all about anyway? First of all we can tell

you what it is not: it is definitely not about stirring people into

irrational buying decisions. Being such an intangible concept,

branding is quite often misunderstood or even disregarded as

creating the illusion that a product or service is better than it

really is (Hague and Jackson, 1994). There is an old saying

among marketers: “Nothing kills a bad product faster than

good advertising” (de Legge, 2002). Without great products

or services and an organization that can sustain them, there

can be no successful brand.

Brands serve exactly the same general purpose in B2B

markets as they do in consumer markets: they facilitate the

identification of products, services and businesses as well as

differentiate them from the competition (Anderson and

Narus, 2004). They are an effective and compelling means to

communicate the benefits and value a product or service can

provide (Morrison, 2001). They are a guarantee of quality,

origin, and performance, thereby increasing the perceived

value to the customer and reducing the risk and complexity

involved in the buying decision (Blackett, 1998).

Brands and brand management have spread far beyond the

traditional view of consumer-goods marketers. Brands are

increasingly important for companies in almost every

industry. Why? For one thing, the explosion of choices in

almost every area. Customers for everything from specialty

steel to software now face an overwhelming number of

potential suppliers. Too many to know them all, let alone to

check them out thoroughly.

Another important aspect of B2B branding is that brands

do not just reach your customers but all stakeholders –

investors, employees, partners, suppliers, competitors,

regulators, or members of your local community. Through a

well-managed brand a company receives greater coverage and

profile within the broker community (Pandey, 2007).

Other than the biggest misconception that branding is only

for consumer products and therefore wasted in B2B, there are

other common misunderstandings and misconceptions

related to B2B branding and branding in general. One

frequently mentioned branding myth is the assumption that

“brand” is simply a name and a logo. Wrong! Branding is

much more than just putting a brand name and a logo on a

product or service. The essence of this concept is to infect B2B companies with

the branding virus – empowering them to make the leap to

becoming a brand-driven and more successful company.

There are many ways to measure overall company success,

such as sales increase, share value, profit, number of

employees, mere brand value (index), etc. To keep it simple

and to limit alterations that may have been influenced by

various sources other than the actual brand, we chose sales

over time as measurement for a company’s success in our

Guiding Principle. The transition point represents a

company’s rise to the challenge of building a B2B brand.

In our constantly changing business environment of new

technologies, globalization and market liberalization, alert

companies are presented with great opportunities. Winning

companies will discard old practices and innovate new

practices to exploit the major trends. With no thought B2B

branding and brand management will become increasingly

important, and the future of brands is the future of business –

probably the only major sustainable competitive advantage. (Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2007)

Webster (2000) provides a different perspective on B2B

brands. Usually, manufacturers’ brands are discussed in a

B2C context; for example Coca Cola or Nike. One issue that

Webster (2000) notes is the declining power of manufacturers

relative to retailers and therefore the declining significance of

manufacturers’ brands in the total schema. Such brands

would seem to be out of the scope of B2B marketing.

However Webster (2000) calls for a reconceptualization of

manufacturers’ brands by taking into account the broader

business network. Webster introduces a B2B context by

focusing on the role of manufacturers’ brands in dealing with

other channel members such as wholesalers and retailers.

Attributes like pre-established demand, quality levels,

credibility and trust are likely to be greater when resellers

deal with strong manufacturer brands. Thus strong brands

have value in penetrating the distribution channels. One way

that manufacturers’ brands are conceptualized (Webster,

2000, p. 21) are as “a pledge of support to retailers”.

Building on Webster (2000), Brodie (2005) argues that

brands are important as facilitators of relationships. In the

B2C context, brands facilitate the relationship between the

firm and the final consumer. In the B2B context, brands

potentially moderate the relationship between firms. This is a

powerful perspective provided by Brodie (2005). However,

although a number of student theses have been conducted

using this perspective, the published material has not yet

eventuated.

The above literature does show a growing research interest

in business-to-business branding, especially in the last five

years. It is too early yet to have a consensus because we do not

yet have a critical mass of studies in the field. ( (Roberts & Merrilees, 2007)

Some researchers have argued that B2B brands go further

than B2C brands by creating ties with other stakeholders,

including channel intermediaries and employees, as well as

customers (Lynch and de Chernatony, 2004; APQC

International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, 2001). In

essence, the brand is the sum of all customer interactions

with the company, which in the industrial environment can

include billing, promotions, salespeople, product

demonstrations, trade shows, as well as after-sales support

services (Smith, 2004). Importantly, these interactions

between the customer and the firm are equivalent to the

brand touchpoints discussed previously. By outsourcing or

partnering with two or more firms to perform certain activities

targeted toward customers, B2B firms are engaging in service

networks.

(Morgan, et al., 2007)

Bibliography1. Baumgarth, C., 2010. “Living the brand”: brand orientation in the business-to-business sector.

European Journal of Marketing, 44(5), pp. 653-671.

2. Bendixena, M. e. a., 2004. Brand equity in the business-to-business market. Industrial Marketing

Management, Issue 33, pp. 371-380.

3. Haakon, A. E. J., 2010. Social media in business to business branding: how B2B companies can

thrive in the new era of digital communication. Trondheim: Teza de disertație.

4. Kotler, P. & Pfoertsch, W., 2007. Being known or being one of many: the need for brand

management for business-to-business (B2B). Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(6),

pp. 357 - 362.

5. Morgan, F., Deeter-Schmelz, D. & Moberg, C. R., 2007. Branding implications of partner firm-

focal firm relationships in business-to-business service networks. Journal of Business &

Industrial Marketing, 22(6), pp. 372-382.

6. Mudambi, S., 2002. Branding importance in business-to-business markets - Three buyer clusters.

Industrial Marketing Management, Issue 31, pp. 525-533.

7. Roberts, J. & Merrilees, B., 2007. Multiple roles of brands in brands in business-to-business

services. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 22(6), pp. 410-417.