外文翻譯--品牌和品牌化研究結(jié)果和今后的工作重點(diǎn)

中文 3370 字 畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文） 譯文及原稿 譯文題目 ： 品牌和品牌化： 研究結(jié)果和今后的工作重點(diǎn) 原稿題目 ： Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities 原稿 出處： Kevin Lane Keller,Donald R. Lehmann.J. Marketing Science.2006(6):740-759 1 品牌和品牌化：研究結(jié)果和今后的工作重點(diǎn) 在過去的十年里，由于越來越多的人 意識(shí)到品牌是最有價(jià)值的無形資產(chǎn)，企業(yè)擁有品牌已成為高層管理人員的工作重點(diǎn)。在這激烈的行業(yè)利益驅(qū)動(dòng)下，在最近幾年中，學(xué)術(shù)研究人員已經(jīng)探索出了一些不同品牌的相關(guān)話題，并創(chuàng)作出大量的論文、文章、研究報(bào)告和書籍。本文列出了一些在品牌領(lǐng)域具有影響力的研究成果，從學(xué)術(shù)角度突出所學(xué)的品牌定位、品牌整合、品牌資產(chǎn)測量、品牌的成長、品牌管理等幾個(gè)重要課題。文中還概述了一些存在在研究品牌和品牌資產(chǎn)以及制定了一系列相關(guān)的研究問題方面上的差距，選擇品牌理念的影響力和所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)來建模，并且結(jié)合主要和相互作用的品牌效應(yīng)以及競爭的影響 進(jìn)行了討論。 品牌 品牌資產(chǎn) 品牌擴(kuò)展 關(guān)鍵詞： 品牌 品牌資產(chǎn) 品牌擴(kuò)展 歷史 : 本文已收到 2004 年 8 月 19 日， 4 個(gè)月兩個(gè)版本的作者 ;由 Leigh 麥卡利斯特處理。 介紹 牌提供了一些有價(jià)值的功能。在其最基本的層面上，品牌作為標(biāo)記被提供在公司的產(chǎn)品上。對(duì)于客戶而言，品牌可以簡化選擇，來確保以一個(gè)特定的質(zhì)量水平降低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，同時(shí) /或者建立信任。品牌是建立在產(chǎn)品本身、相應(yīng)的營銷活動(dòng)、使用（或不使用）的消費(fèi)者以及其他人身上。品牌因此反映了消費(fèi)者與產(chǎn)品之間的全面經(jīng)驗(yàn)。品牌也在確定營銷工作的有效性如：廣告和渠道布置方 面發(fā)揮了重要的作用。最后，品牌是一個(gè)在金融意義上的資產(chǎn)。因此，品牌體現(xiàn)在客戶市場、產(chǎn)品市場和金融市場這三個(gè)主要層次中的影響。這些因不同的效益形成的價(jià)值，通常被稱為品牌資產(chǎn)。 在本文中，我們的主要目標(biāo)是有選擇地突顯出構(gòu)建、測量以及管理品牌資產(chǎn)的相關(guān)研究，在我們對(duì)這些主題的理解里找出差距。我們非常重視后者并且提出許多未來研究領(lǐng)域的建議。結(jié)合“品牌管理決策和任務(wù)”頻繁地由營銷高管詳細(xì)討論出五個(gè)基本主題： (1)開發(fā)的品牌定位、 (2)整合品牌營銷、 (3)評(píng)估品牌性能、(4)日益增長的品牌、 (5)戰(zhàn)略管理的品牌。接著， 我們認(rèn)為這項(xiàng)研究成果的意義為選擇模型。最后 ,我們提出了一個(gè)與客戶市場、產(chǎn)品市場、金融市場三個(gè)層次相統(tǒng)一的品牌影響以及品牌是如何被公司的行為給創(chuàng)建和開發(fā)的簡單框架。 2 品牌決策和任務(wù) （ 1） 開發(fā)的品牌定位 品牌定位為品牌應(yīng)不應(yīng)該從事其營銷活動(dòng)以及方案指明了方向。品牌定位涉及到在顧客心目中和其他重要成分里建立關(guān)鍵品牌聯(lián)想來區(qū)分品牌和建立（盡可能的范圍內(nèi)）的競爭優(yōu)勢。除了選擇（例如：馬力汽車）這種有形產(chǎn)品屬性級(jí)別的明顯問題外，另外這兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域特別是有關(guān)于在品牌無形的作用和企業(yè)形象和聲譽(yù)的作用中的定位。 品牌無形資產(chǎn)。 一 個(gè)重要且相對(duì)獨(dú)特的品牌研究方面是以品牌形象方面中不涉及物理的、有形的、具體屬性或者福利的品牌無形資產(chǎn)為重點(diǎn)的。品牌無形資產(chǎn)是一種通過營銷人員與消費(fèi)者來區(qū)分營銷人員的品牌和超越實(shí)體產(chǎn)品的常見手段。品牌無形資產(chǎn)覆蓋了各種各樣的不同類型的品牌聯(lián)想，如實(shí)際的或期望的用戶圖像、購買和消費(fèi)的圖像與歷史，文物以及經(jīng)驗(yàn)。一些基本研究問題就如何有形資產(chǎn)和無形資產(chǎn)有他們的品牌效應(yīng)而言還存在。 研究問題 1、在發(fā)展品牌資產(chǎn)中，產(chǎn)品性能和目標(biāo)有什么作用或者有形與無形的圖像屬性的特性是什么 ? 2、無形的屬性是形成（原因）嗎，還是為了 權(quán)益或抉擇而反映（構(gòu)筑）的原因？就是說，他們認(rèn)為先驗(yàn)或“建造”后經(jīng)驗(yàn)的品牌？ 3、何時(shí)以及在何種程度上從不太積極或者甚至消極認(rèn)知信息里召回愉快的圖像（或“激動(dòng)”的情感）保護(hù)品牌？ 4、有多少品牌資產(chǎn)與獨(dú)特屬性的產(chǎn)品是聯(lián)系在一起的？當(dāng)競爭對(duì)手復(fù)制這些屬性會(huì)發(fā)生什么事情？ 5、在長期（例如，“高質(zhì)量”和“高等級(jí)”）以及具有有限的使用壽命里（例如“嘻哈”），哪一種屬性聯(lián)想是最穩(wěn)定的并且是最有用的品牌？ 6、品牌可以被認(rèn)為是一個(gè)判斷力偏見還是就環(huán)境而言在消費(fèi)者決策中的影響？關(guān)于品牌測量和估價(jià)，這些觀點(diǎn)有什么影響？ 品牌個(gè)性。 艾克（ 1997）尋找歸納了美國品牌的特色，發(fā)現(xiàn)他們有五種特點(diǎn)：（ 1）誠意（ 2）自信（ 3）能力（ 4）精明和（ 5）耐久。艾克等人（ 2001）發(fā)現(xiàn)，其中的三個(gè)特點(diǎn)也適用于日本和西班牙品牌，但是“平和”取代了“耐久”在美國的位置，而且在西班牙出現(xiàn)的是“激情”而不是“能力”。艾克（ 1999）還發(fā)現(xiàn)不同品牌的特質(zhì)影響不同類型的人在消費(fèi)上的不同選擇。她解釋這些實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果 3 是在一個(gè)“突出自我的概念的社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀下”得到的“開拓自我”的結(jié)果（見 Graeff 1996, 1997）。而 Azoulay 和 Kapferer (2003)要來挑戰(zhàn)該結(jié)論衡量的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，擬人化是消費(fèi)者偶然討論及廣告信息中常用的方式（例如，“那個(gè)牌子是個(gè)非常時(shí)尚的”）。 研究的問題： 1、品牌個(gè)性如何影響消費(fèi)者決策？在什么情況下影響？ 2、品牌個(gè)性的戰(zhàn)略或戰(zhàn)術(shù)（例如，從“外觀和感覺”上的廣告制作）的重要性？ 3、不同人的價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是什么？是否某些人的善變或忠誠度比別人更高？不同的產(chǎn)品類別影響價(jià)值還是其他因素？ 4、如何穩(wěn)定這些人的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和什么改變了他們的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？ 5、聯(lián)想比較其他品牌的穩(wěn)定性。 品牌關(guān)系。 產(chǎn)品研發(fā)還曾探索過品牌與消費(fèi)者兩者之間關(guān)系中的自我開發(fā) 部分。福尼爾 (1998) 研究過消費(fèi)者和公司擁有或想要擁有的這種關(guān)系的本質(zhì)。福尼爾認(rèn)為品牌關(guān)系的特性作為多層面的且沿著消費(fèi)者品牌關(guān)系的改變而超出忠誠或者承諾的六個(gè)維度 ：（ 1）自我概念連接，（ 2）承諾或懷舊的附件，（ 3）行為相互依存，（ 4）愛情 /激情，（ 5）親密，（ 6）品牌合作伙伴的質(zhì)量。她建議以下暗喻的象征主義來表示共同的消費(fèi)者品牌關(guān)系：（ 1）包辦婚姻，（ 2）普通朋友/伙伴，（ 3）權(quán)宜結(jié)婚，（ 4）堅(jiān)定的伙伴關(guān)系，（ 5）死黨 ,（ 6 ）區(qū)劃友誼，（ 7）親緣關(guān)系，（ 8）重溫舊好 /回避被動(dòng)的關(guān)系，（ 9）童年的友 誼，（ 10）求愛，（ 11）依賴性，（ 12）婚外情，（ 13）敵意，（ 14）秘密風(fēng)流韻事，（ 15）奴隸化 雖然這種特性里包含了最積極的關(guān)系，但是它可能忽略了一系列可能產(chǎn)生的負(fù)面（例如，對(duì)手）和中性（例如，貿(mào)易伙伴）的人。艾克（ 2004 年）等人進(jìn)行了為期兩個(gè)月的關(guān)于消費(fèi)者和品牌之間的關(guān)系發(fā)展和演變的縱向調(diào)查。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)在在發(fā)展形式和動(dòng)力學(xué)有兩個(gè)因素即感知犯罪和品牌個(gè)性，具有一定的顯著影響。阿革瓦（ 2004）探討過如何為兩種人際關(guān)系類型改變關(guān)系準(zhǔn)則 :交換關(guān)系，它的好處是給其他人得到回饋，以及公共關(guān)系，它的好處是給其他 人需要的關(guān)心。 研究問題： 1、怎么樣可以知道消費(fèi)者想要的人際關(guān)系？是否涉及到隱私以及被公司利用客戶數(shù)據(jù)使用量的增加而擔(dān)憂從而導(dǎo)致客戶希望匿名、事務(wù)性的關(guān)系，還是客戶仍然希望與企業(yè)有密切的關(guān)系？個(gè)性化的交流能使客戶真正享受到了當(dāng)家作主的感覺和 /或感覺到有價(jià)值，還是他們感覺被利用了嗎？ 2、怎樣才能由該公司通過市場營銷活動(dòng)培養(yǎng)出一個(gè)理想的客戶關(guān)系？如何 4 通過不同類型的營銷活動(dòng)，如廣告，客戶服務(wù)和在線資源結(jié)合去影響客戶關(guān)系？ 3、在一個(gè)的信息廣泛共享又被看作是糟糕的歧視的世界里，還應(yīng)該要堅(jiān)定處理不同的客戶之間需要 的不同關(guān)系嗎？可以確定將客戶關(guān)系劃分并且能夠識(shí)別不同類型關(guān)系的客戶嗎？這些不同產(chǎn)品類別或競爭產(chǎn)品有什么優(yōu)勢嗎？ 4、在不同類型的客戶關(guān)系中，相對(duì)盈利能力是什么？一些客戶應(yīng)該被鼓勵(lì)和被勸阻還是是被“炒魷魚”呢？或者，有沒有一種系統(tǒng)的方式可以將無利可圖的客戶遷移到有利可圖的關(guān)系？ 品牌體驗(yàn)。 體驗(yàn)式營銷是營銷思想中的一個(gè)重要趨勢。通過一些書籍和文章，施密特（ 1999 年， 2003 年）已經(jīng)開發(fā)出了客戶體驗(yàn)管理理念（ CEM），他將其定義為客戶與產(chǎn)品或公司之間整個(gè)體驗(yàn)的戰(zhàn)略管理過程。據(jù)施密特所說，品牌可以幫助建立 5 個(gè)不 同類型的經(jīng)驗(yàn)： 感覺涉及情感和情緒的經(jīng)驗(yàn)； 想創(chuàng)造和認(rèn)知的經(jīng)驗(yàn)； 涉及物理行為，并納入個(gè)人行為和生活方式的行動(dòng)經(jīng)驗(yàn)； 從一個(gè)參照組或者文化中得出的結(jié)果的相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)。 研究問題： 1、有哪些不同的方式的經(jīng)驗(yàn)影響品牌資產(chǎn) ?企業(yè)如何確保這些經(jīng)驗(yàn)?zāi)軌蚍e極地影響品牌資產(chǎn) ?更具體地說 , 廣告如何可以觸發(fā)一個(gè)品牌的積極經(jīng)驗(yàn)或使負(fù)面不那么突出或有影響力？ 2、根據(jù)公司的控制權(quán)，有多少有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的相關(guān)品牌？他們?nèi)绾文艿玫接行У目刂疲?3、什么時(shí)候以及在什么程度上可以根據(jù)客戶的正面或者負(fù)面的回應(yīng)試圖控制他們的 經(jīng)驗(yàn)？客戶在有關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的控制上將公司的行為和態(tài)度歸因于什么？ 4、如何識(shí)別或?qū)崿F(xiàn)公司參與影響品牌的經(jīng)驗(yàn) ? 品牌識(shí)別可以為經(jīng)驗(yàn)提供便利嗎？需要多少條植入式廣告 (如在電影中 )才能影響品牌資產(chǎn)并且這樣的權(quán)益能夠維持多久 ? 5、公司該如何利用一些不同尋常的情況，例如當(dāng)品牌關(guān)聯(lián)到一個(gè)積極的事件 ?一個(gè)公司如何才能最大限度地減少消極事件 (如發(fā)言人惡劣的行為 )的影響 ? 5 Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities Branding has emerged as a top management priority in the last decade due to the growing realization that brands are one of the most valuable intangible assets that firms have. Driven in part by this intense industry interest, academic researchers have explored a number of different brand-related topics in recent years, generating scores of papers, articles, research reports, and books. This paper identifies some of the influential work in the branding area, highlighting what has been learned from an academic perspective on important topics such as brand positioning, brand integration, brand-equity measurement, brand growth, and brand management. The paper also outlines some gaps that exist in the research of branding and brand equity and formulates a series of related research questions. Choice modeling implications of the branding concept and the challenges of incorporating main and interaction effects of branding as well as the impact of competition are discussed. Key words: brands; brand equity; brand extensions History: This paper was received August 19, 2004, and was with the authors 4 months for 2 revisions; processed by Leigh McAlister. Introduction Brands serve several valuable functions. At their most basic level, brands serve as markers for the offerings of a firm. For customers, brands can simplify choice, promise a particular quality level, reduce risk, and/or engender trust. Brands are built on the product itself, the accompanying marketing activity, and the use (or nonuse) by customers as well as others. Brands thus reflect the complete experience that customers have with products. Brands also play an important role in determining the effectiveness of marketing efforts such as advertising and channel placement. Finally, brands are an asset in the financial sense. Thus, brands manifest their impact at three primary levels customer market, product market, and financial market. The value accrued by these various benefits is often called brand equity. Our primary goal in this paper is to both selectively highlight relevant research on building, measuring, and managing brand equity and to identify gaps in our understanding of these topics. We put considerable emphasis on the latter and suggest numerous areas of future research. Five basic topics that align with the 6 brand-management decisions and tasks frequently performed by marketing executives are discussed in detail: (1) developing brand positioning, (2) integrating brand marketing, (3) assessing brand performance, (4) growing brands, and (5) strategically managing the brand. We then consider the implications of this work for choice models. Finally, we present a simple framework for integrating the customer-market, product-market, and financial-market level impact of brands and how the brand is created and developed by company actions. Branding Decisions and Tasks Developing Brand Positioning Brand positioning sets the direction of marketing activities and programs what the brand should and should not do with its marketing. Brand positioning involves establishing key brand associations in the minds of customers and other important constituents to differentiate the brand and establish (to the extent possible) competitive superiority (Keller et al. 2002). Besides the obvious issue of selecting tangible product attribute levels (e.g., horsepower in a car), two areas particularly relevant to positioning are the role of brand intangibles and the role of corporate images and reputation. Brand Intangibles.An important and relatively unique aspect of branding research is the focus on brand intangibles aspects of the brand image that do not involve physical, tangible, or concrete attributes or benefits (see Levy 1999). Brand intangibles are a common means by which marketers differentiate their brands with consumers (Park et al. 1986) and transcend physical products (Kotler and Keller 2006). Intangibles cover a wide range of different types of brand associations such as actual or aspirational user imagery; purchase and consumption imagery; and history, heritage, and experiences (Keller 2001). A number of basic research questions exist concerning how brand tangibles and intangibles have their effects. Research Questions 1. In developing brand equity, what is the role of product performance and objective or tangible attributes versus intangible image attributes? 2. Are intangible attributes formative (causes) or reflective (constructed) reasons for equity or choice? That is, are they considered a priori or “ constructed” after 7 experience with the brand? 3. When and to what extent does recall of pleasant images (or “ hot” emotions) shield a brand from less positive or even negative cognitive information? 4. How much of brand equity is tied to unique attributes of a product? What happens when competitors copy these attributes? 5. Which attribute associations are most stable and beneficial to a brand over the long run (e.g., “ high quality” and “ upscale” ) and which have limited useful life (e.g., being “ hip” )? 6. Can brands be thought of as simply a judgment bias or in terms of context effects in consumer decision making? What implications do these perspectives have for brand-equity measurement and valuation? Brand Personality.Aaker (1997) examined the personalities attributed to U.S. brands and found they fall into five main clusters: (1) sincerity, (2) excitement, (3) competence, (4) sophistication, and (5) ruggedness. Aaker et al. (2001) found that three of the five factors also applied to brands in both Japan and Spain, but that a “ peacefulness” dimension replaced “ ruggedness” both in Japan and Spain, and a “ passion” dimension emerged in Spain instead of “ competency.” Aaker (1999) also found that different brand personality dimensions affected different types of people in different consumption settings. She interpreted these experimental results in terms of a “ malleable self,” which is composed of self-conceptions that can be made salient by a social situation (see also Graeff 1996, 1997). While Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) have challenged the conceptual validity of this particular brand personality scale, the anthropomorphism of a brand is common in both casual consumer conversation (e.g., “ that brand is hip ” ) and advertising messages. Research Questions 1. How does brand personality affect consumer decision making? Under what circumstances? 2. Is brand personality of more strategic or tactical (e.g., in terms of the “ look and feel” of ad executions) importance? 3. What is the value of the different personality dimensions? Are certain personality dimensions more valuable at driving preference or loyalty than others? Does the value vary by product category or by other factors? 4. How stable are these various personality dimensions and what causes them to 8 evolve or change? How does this stability compare to the stability of other types of brand associations? Brand Relationships. Research has also explored the personal component of the relationship between a brand and its customers. Fournier (1998) examined the nature of relationships that customers have as well as want to have with companies (see also Fournier and Yao 1997, Fournier et al. 1998). Fournier views brand-relationship quality as multifaceted and consisting of six dimensions beyond loyalty or commit ment along which consumerbrand relationships vary: (1) self-concept connection, (2) commitment or nostalgic attachment, (3) behavioral interdependence, (4) love/passion, (5) intimacy, and (6) brand-partner quality. She suggests the following typology of metaphors to represent common customer-brand relationships: (1) arranged marriages, (2) casual friends/buddies, (3) marriages of convenience, (4) committed partnerships, (5) best friendships, (6) compartmentalized friendships, (7) kinships, (8) rebounds/avoidance-driven relationships, (9) childhood friendships, (10) courtships, (11) dependencies, (12) flings, (13) enmities, (14) secret affairs, and (15) enslavements. While this typology contains most positive relationships, it may overlook a range of possible negative (e.g., adversary) and neutral (e.g., trading partner) ones. Aaker et al. (2004) conducted a two-month longitudinal investigation of the development and evolution of relationships between consumers and brands. They found that two factors experiencing a transgression and the personality of the brand had a significant influence on developmental form and dynamics. Aggarwal (2004) explored how relationship norms varied for two types of relationships: exchange relationships, in which benefits are given to others to get something back, and communal relationships, in which benefits are given to show concern for others needs. Research Questions 1. How can a customer s desired relationship be determined? Have concerns over privacy and the increased use of customer data by firms resulted in customers wanting more anonymous, transactional relationships, or do customers still desire close relationships with companies? Does personalization of communication make customers feel empowered and/or valued, or do they feel more exploited? 2. How can a desired customer relationship be cultivated by the company through marketing activities? How do different types of marketing activities such as 9 advertising, customer service, and online resources combine to affect customer relationships? 3. In a world where information is widely shared and discrimination is seen as bad, should a firm deal differently with customers who desire different relationships? Can customer relationships be segmented and can customers who desire different types of relationships be identified? Does this vary by product category or by competing product benefits? 4. What is the relative profitability of different types of customer relationships? Should some customers be encouraged and others discouraged or “ fired?” Alternatively, are there systematic ways to migrate unprofitable customers into profitable relationships? Brand Experience. Experiential marketing is an important trend in marketing thinking. Through several books and articles, Schmitt (1999, 2003) has developed the concept of customer experience management (CEM), which he defines