Summary Branding ‘Article 1; Branding in a Hyperconnected World: Refocusing Theories and
Rethinking Boundaries (Swaminathan, Sorescu, Steenkamp, O’Guinn & Schmitt)’
Introduction
Hyperconnectivity: proliferation of networks of people, devices, and other entities, and continuous
access to other people, machines, and organizations, regardless of time or location. Hyperconnectivity
has led to two major changes in branding:
1. Blurring of branding boundaries: access to information and people allows stakeholders to
cocreate brand meanings and experiences alongside traditional brand owners and managers
-> brands are shifting from single to shared ownership.
2. Broadening of branding boundaries: existing brands expand their geographic reach and
societal roles, and new types of branded entities (ideas, people, places) are added.
Key theoretical perspectives in the branding literature
Three perspectives in branding:
1. Firm perspective: brands are seen as assets and various functions and roles that brands
serve for firms, strategically and financially, are examined. Approaches:
Strategic approach: development and implementation of brand identity, positioning,
targeting, launch and growth of brands, brand portfolio architecture, and management
of brands across geographic boundaries are examined.
Financial approach: measuring effect of brand equity and branding actions on stock
market value of firms.
2. Consumer perspective: brands are seen as signals (economic approach) and mental
knowledge cues (psychological approach). Approaches:
Economic approach: brands are treated as market signals -> firms tend to know more
than consumers about quality of their brand -> information asymmetry.
Psychological approach: brand equity exists in minds of consumers -> brand
knowledge: mental representation of brand awareness (recall and recognition) and
brand image (types, favourability, strength, uniqueness of brand associations). Other
mental representations are affect and emotions -> brand trust, brand attachment,
brand coolness. Brand experiences: sensory, affective, and intellectual impressions
and behavioural actions toward brands.
3. Society perspective: brands are presented in societal and cultural contexts affecting individual
consumers direct and indirect through social forces, structures, and institutions. Approaches:
Sociological approach: brands are seen as portable containers of meaning that are
shaped by institutions and collectives from the time the brand in conceived, produced,
and marketed, through the post purchase stage. Important is brand community: non-
geographic space in which admirers of a brand connect with one another and
demonstrate all three necessary distinctions of community: consciousness of kind,
rituals and traditions, and moral obligation.
Cultural approach: branded goods, as cultural meaning producers, enhance
consumers’ lives -> consumer culture theory, which addresses dynamic relationships
among consumer actions, the marketplace, and cultural meanings.
Boundaries of branding in the era of hyperconnectivity
Hyperconnected world is characterized by networks of people, devices, and other entities that are
continuously interacting and exchanging information. Relevant aspects of hyperconnectivity:
1. Information availability and speed of information dissemination. Availability of technology that
connects people and devices had led to grow of information availability and speed of
information dissemination -> questions about assumptions of other theoretical perspectives
(core assumption of economic view with high search costs and information asymmetry ->
brands don’t serve as primary signals of quality when search costs are low and information
asymmetry is reduced by various stakeholders who share their opinions). Access to
information is easier in hyperconnected worlds -> consumers need to expend less effort in
learning information about brands -> models of memory activation and learning should be
updated and volume of external information can lead to information overload: situation in
which not all communication input can be processed and used.
, 2. Networks of people and devices, and growth of platforms. Rise of networks of people and
devices and development of platform technology have led to environment in which brands and
their meanings are cocreated -> firms compete with other stakeholders (online influencers) to
spread branded information -> loss of control on brand meaning and brand experiences.
3. Device-to-device connectivity. Due to device-to-device connectivity, branded experiences are
more complex in environment in which consumers can access the brand via multiple channels
that seamlessly connect with one another, and brands became integral components of
networks of smart products that are populating the internet of things.
Blurring and broadening of branding in a hyperconnected world
Consumers are no longer exposed to firm-controlled advertising, because information is available
widely across multiple channels -> consumers’ attention is scattered across many channels -> brand
meaning is increasingly cocreated and brand stakeholders (customers, employees, society) are
increasingly shaping various aspects of marketing-mix activities (platform-based business model,
Amazon’s Echo). Key consequence of rise of sharing economy is blurring of brand boundaries ->
customers span increasingly both demand and supply sides.
Marketers are losing some control over meaning consumers associate with brands, but more brand-
related stakeholders are involved in shaping brand associations, because hyperconnectivity has
allowed other entities to easily reach them -> reach of brands and role of brands (commercial brands
have also social mission) broadened.
Blurring and broadening of branding can be illustrated with four types of brands (platform brand, idea
brand, product brand, and person brand) and stakeholders that shape them. Brand meaning is more
dynamic when brand ownership is more porous (shared) and is cocreated by brand with its
stakeholders.
Rethinking the roles and the functions of brands
Brands need to be reassessed as technology has improved access to information, products, and
people. Approaches of brands that needs to be reassessed:
Brands as quality signals sent by firms -> brand meaning and quality perceptions crafted by
market feedback. In hyperconnected economy, consumers can easily access information about
brands -> decrease of information asymmetry between brand owners and consumers due to lower
search costs -> brand’s quality signal could face interference from alternative signals of quality derived
from the collective reviews and opinions available online -> researchers need to understand impact of
marketplace-generated brand information on brand trust.
Brands as mental cues -> brand information processing models that account for information
being conveyed in a multisensory way. Brand information processing (how consumers acquire,
use, and remember brand knowledge) depends on consumers’ motivation, ability, and opportunity to
process information -> brands can act as cues that access knowledge held in consumers’ memories.
Understanding of brand information processing should be extended as consumers increasingly
process information -> refine dual-processing models and consider how sensory information
contributes to brand awareness and choice. Sensory
cues may change how brand information is
processed.
,Brands as tools of identity expression and relationship partners -> brands as instruments of
multifaceted identity expression. Brands can be used to support desired consumer identity and may
be associated with humanlike traits (brand personality), because brands become imbued with
associations through their use. Due to hyperconnectivity, consumers can adopt multiple personas on
their devices and change their identities frequently (online and offline self) -> rethink about how to
leverage brands to build identities because of multiple dynamic identities of consumers (flexible view,
well-defined meaning that helps to anchor). Consumers have also access to broader set of brands in
digital space that can be used to express their identity -> richer set of identity-building tools, but
questions about strength of identification with brands in digital space.
Brands as cultural icons -> brands as containers of socially constructed meaning. Brands are
expending their social role by becoming activist tools aligned with various social and political issues ->
brands should uphold societal values, because this gives consumers opportunity to use the in
instrumental ways to show support for social causes, but prescriptions on how to remain social
relevant are lacking.
Brands as individual entities or dyad partners -> brands as architects of value in networks. In
hyperconnected economy, brands are increasingly embedded in complex networks consisting of
users, partners, cocreators, and co-owners -> research on how brands can extract value from their
position in network. Brands can provide value in networks by contributing to seamless user
experiences on online platforms through simplify users’ navigation through brand-embedded networks,
and by ensuring compatibility across branded entities in network (Apple). Traditional conceptualization
of user experience that relies on product or service usage can be broadened to include interactions
across entire network that is linked to specific brand -> brand network user experience.
Brands as tools of individual self-expression -> brands as catalysts of communities. Brands
serve as catalysts of social interaction and community through shared consciousness and brand use,
loyalty, and engagement among community members, but hyperconnectivity has increased potential
for individuals to establish and join brand communities (social networks, platforms). Branded
communities can create value by enhancing brand experiences for user and by providing firms with
forum to test out new ideas, collect feedback, and better understand how brands are consumed, and
may offer social benefits (aloneness).
Brands as neutral entities -> brands as arbiters of controversy. Brands have been constructed as
symbols to give meaning to consumers and their social positions -> people use branded symbols to
reinforce their view of self. Brands have stronger voice in hyperconnected world in which their
messages on social and political issues can quickly spread and multiply -> more responsibility of
addressing important social issues in ways that can help society to move forward. Hyperconnectivity
strengthen voice of brands, but also reduced their ability to stay above on controversial topics ->
consumers with deep brand connections may question authenticity of brand. Dimensions perceived
brand authenticity: continuity, credibility, integrity, and symbolism. Integrity and symbolism are relevant
when brands face conflict, because failing to take clear stance may lower perceptions of brand
integrity and foster identity conflict among consumers who use brand in symbolic ways to
communicate certain values.
Brands as guarantors of quality -> brands as stewards of consumer data privacy. Data that
brands can access about customers have increased as brand boundaries become blurred -> data are
potential source of value for branded entities (targeting, customization), but it has also legal and
ethical challenges (privacy, security). More research is needed in understanding implications of
privacy concerns for brands and trade-offs essential for achieving greater personalization.
, Rethinking brand value creation and cocreation
Brands and their messages are no longer exclusively shaped by their owners -> firms cocreate
brands’ experiences and meaning with their stakeholders -> most significant change in how brands
deliver value in digital economy. Cocreation of brand experience often occurs on digital platforms:
enterprises that use internet to facilitate economically beneficial interactions between two or more
independent groups of users (Uber, LinkedIn) -> multiple players contribute to creation of brand
associations and brand experience. Research should focus on how interactions between firm and its
stakeholders shape the brand, and other branding aspects of cocreation on digital platforms
(governance mechanism, influencing platform participants, differential branding benefits). Brand
cocreation process should be examined from different perspectives (firm, consumer, society).
Companies not only cocreate brand experiences with their customers, but some give consumers the
opportunity to design brand advertisements -> research should address various facets and
consequences of outsourcing design of brand communications to consumers. Rise of social media has
led to weakened firm control over the brand meaning in the marketplace, because communications
take place among many consumers -> large volume of user-generated content that has made it easier
to marketers to listen to consumers on social media platforms -> unique insights into customer needs
and wants and low-cost data. Research is needed to understand implications of consumer-generated
content on customer engagement and motivations for consumers to engage in WOM communications.
The focus has also shift from designing brands that operate independently and are under firms’ control
to creating new brands that dynamically interact with firm post purchase, with their users, and with
other products -> fresh perspective on how to brand and manage complex products that interact in
newer ways. Success will depend on degree to which brand can leverage hyperconnectivity among
networks of people and devices (easy access to consumers -> direct-to-consumer brands). Facets of
hyperconnectivity that are relevant in context of new brands:
1. Networked communications: information and positive word of mouth about innovative new
products can spread quickly via global social media and buying platforms -> securing early
adopters faster.
2. Network value creation: smart products that connect with other products and provide value as
network or system are required -> products need to be connectable and connected with other
brands.
3. Data collection: new brands are more likely to be perceived as innovative and valuable for
firm, consumers, and society if they collect data and make data available to stakeholders.
Research should investigate ways in which data can be leveraged to be central aspect of value
creation of new brand. Data can help improve firms’ operations and be of benefit to society. Brands of
future will be updated constantly, because design will also include software -> interesting is extent to
which consumers are willing to make trade-off between privacy concerns and ability to have their
products updated and maintained in real time. Brand as clearly defined entity that needs to create
awareness and image among stakeholders to induce loyalty among them may become obsolete and
be replaced by more transient model of value creation among interconnected devices that don’t
require much labelling and branding -> changes in management of brands will be necessary.
Rethinking brand management
Aspects of brand management that have been affected by hyperconnectivity:
Blurred control of brand positioning and brand communication: control of brand positioning and
brand communication by firm -> brand message as output of multimedia online consumer
communications. Firms must contend with three changes:
Competition has broadened as connectivity has increased consumer access to set of brands.
Internet and mobile devices offer much broader space and more ways to communicate brand
messages -> more difficult to optimize message placement.
Firms’ brand communications are supplemented and dwarfed by those generated from
outsiders -> brand messages may be modified by brand opinions generated by outsiders.
Branding’s pervasiveness across products, people, places, and ideas makes it more difficult for firms
to clearly delineate their competitive space and to find a unique message, but firms’ potential
